Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6585|do not disturb

mcminty wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

mcminty wrote:

How else do you propose to reduce the deficit?
Cut spending, drastically. It is not possible to tax revenue to pay for the deficit and future debt from obligations that include, Medicaid, Medicare, and social security. It is just not possible, unless I'm greatly deceived by elementary math.
Yes, yes, duh. Of course that has to happen. But my point was that until government income > government spending, the deficit will continue to grow.
Was I mistaken that you were saying tax increases were part of a realistic solution to reducing the deficit? This is clearly a spending issue, not a revenue issue. Taxes do not need to rise to solve this. Doing so only burdens the economy. GDP suggests the recession has passed, however, unemployment still hovers around 10%, or 16-17% if you review U-6.
Benzin
Member
+576|5968
mcminty was saying both needs to happen: cut spending and increase government revenue.

I was reading a Bill Bryson editorial from one of his older books (I think circa 1998?) and he mentions in it an experiment that Congress did where they gave the IRS a larger budget to see if they could go after tax evaders more. What happened? Roughly for every $1 spent, they got a return of $8 (I hope I'm right here, maybe it was a return of $4...). What happened directly after that? Congress cut the budget and took the IRS's money away.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6619

Macbeth wrote:

The return of the Death Tax.  This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Never liked the idea of a death tax. A person works hard their whole life and wants to leave their children or someone else the entire sum of their life's labor but the government goes and takes more than half.

I can't hold it against someone if they decide to try get around and not pay on this one.
Agreed. And because of the cost involved, it means people are forced to sell the house in a lot of cases. Which if it's a house your parents built, or a house that you grew up in kinda sucks.
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|6535|Area 51
So wait..US top income tax is 35% now?

The fuck.
=NHB=Shadow
hi
+322|6335|California

RDMC wrote:

So wait..US top income tax is 35% now?

The fuck.
it's not like you make that much anyways
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6691|Sydney, Australia

CapnNismo wrote:

mcminty was saying both needs to happen: cut spending and increase government revenue.
Yeah, I was saying that.. although Phrozenbot is right in saying that increasing taxes (past a certain point anyway) will result in slowing economic growth. But you do know that government "transfer payments" - health benefits, pensions, unemployment benefits, etc - are considered as negative exogenous tax incomes? Thus one avenue of "increasing taxes" is to decrease these transfer payments. Although that's just economics semantics as I assume Phrozenbot was suggesting that all along..
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6619

=NHB=Shadow wrote:

RDMC wrote:

So wait..US top income tax is 35% now?

The fuck.
it's not like you make that much anyways
Neither do you, what's your point?
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|6535|Area 51

=NHB=Shadow wrote:

RDMC wrote:

So wait..US top income tax is 35% now?

The fuck.
it's not like you make that much anyways
Well my point was actually..that the US top income tax is 35%.

Here in the Netherlands 35% is pretty much the LOWEST income tax . 52% being the highest.
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6691|Sydney, Australia

RDMC wrote:

=NHB=Shadow wrote:

RDMC wrote:

So wait..US top income tax is 35% now?

The fuck.
it's not like you make that much anyways
Well my point was actually..that the US top income tax is 35%.

Here in the Netherlands 35% is pretty much the LOWEST income tax . 52% being the highest.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/800px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6470|so randum
seems to be working rather nicely for germany so far
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6619

I don't think that graph is right at all for the Netherlands. The top tax bracket (52%) comes in at something stupidly low like 50k. No one in Holland makes under that. Germany's top tax bracket on the other hand is a good few percent lower.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6644|Canberra, AUS

mcminty wrote:

RDMC wrote:

=NHB=Shadow wrote:


it's not like you make that much anyways
Well my point was actually..that the US top income tax is 35%.

Here in the Netherlands 35% is pretty much the LOWEST income tax . 52% being the highest.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ry.svg.png
So let me get this straight. We have universal healthcare, a half-decent social safety net etc. etc.

And we still pay less tax.



(I love oversimplifying things)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6654|United States of America
There's a problem with the people in this country, too. They all want lower taxes because taxes are evil, but they still expect the government to provide all their wildest dreams. You can elect a candidate who will promise "to reduce the deficit", but if there's a platform to raise taxes and reduce expenditures, that person's not getting into office. This country will not be able to make any headway if people still want their expensive shit that they can barely afford, so God forbid we change tax rates and they lose their Escalade.
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6585|do not disturb

mcminty wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

mcminty was saying both needs to happen: cut spending and increase government revenue.
Yeah, I was saying that.. although Phrozenbot is right in saying that increasing taxes (past a certain point anyway) will result in slowing economic growth. But you do know that government "transfer payments" - health benefits, pensions, unemployment benefits, etc - are considered as negative exogenous tax incomes? Thus one avenue of "increasing taxes" is to decrease these transfer payments. Although that's just economics semantics as I assume Phrozenbot was suggesting that all along..
It was more of a philosophical argument from a very fiscal conservative standpoint. There are many here who argue the government doesn't have a right to tax our income at all, and that we should keep the fruit of our labor. If I use public services, which we all do, I should understand the need of the government to somehow obtain funds in order to create and maintain these services. However, severe reckless spending is void of a tax argument, because the government is clearly spending more money it can tax and borrow, by an astonishing scale.

Not at all attempting to be preachy. The point being, the deficit will still continue growing despite the tax increase.
rdx-fx
...
+955|6561

mcminty wrote:

How else do you propose to reduce the deficit?
Cut back spending on wasteful bullshit programs.

Tighten the belt, so to speak, and take a hard look at what programs are essential governmental services and what are unaffordable luxuries in the current economic climate.

We either take the hard look now, while we can still afford most of the essential services,
or we run it until the wheels fall off, and we can't afford most of those essential services anymore.

Unfortunately, I think we've reached the terminal stage where the Public has figured out it can blackmail the politicians into giving them entitlement programs. This is the danger of a direct Democracy, as opposed to a fair representative Republic such as we started out with.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

1.3 trillion dollar deficit.
And government coffers don't expand when taxes go up.  When you tax something you get less of it.  Check the increases in revenue each time a tax decrease occurred in history.

Now only if we could get spending under control...
It depends...

Currently, personal income taxes are about as low as they feasibly can be in America, especially on the rich.  If you look at the personal income tax rates throughout the First World, most of them are considerably higher than ours.

Part of why personal taxes don't go much lower than ours is because they literally can't without amassing even bigger deficits than we currently have.

A lot of people like to cite Reagan's tax cuts as an example of how you can reduce taxes while still increase government revenue.  This happened back then because personal income taxes on the wealthy were about as high as you could possibly maintain.  When Reagan slashed these rates by a huge amount, this inspired a massive amount of economic growth, which in turn, allowed for more government revenue.

Unfortunately, we're on the opposite end of the spectrum now, where we've already passed the point where lowering taxes would actually increase government revenue.  We also have a tremendous amount of debt that we need to eliminate some of before our credit rating goes completely to shit.

This means that the end of these tax cuts is inevitable.  We can't postpone paying back these debts any longer.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
Not renewing a tax cut = tax increase?
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5671|College Park, MD
1) I agree that the death tax is ridiculous. "Thanks for playing, we'll take half of your shit now."

2) I also agree with DesertFox. You can't expect for the government to continue providing all these social services without paying for it. Either increase taxes or decrease services.

3) Didn't 47% of Americans (or something like that) not owe any Federal income tax last year?

4) Companies that do business in the USA should be taxed. No more tax evasion for companies like Exxon, Shell and Halliburton.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6691|Sydney, Australia

Phrozenbot wrote:

It was more of a philosophical argument from a very fiscal conservative standpoint. There are many here who argue the government doesn't have a right to tax our income at all, and that we should keep the fruit of our labor. If I use public services, which we all do, I should understand the need of the government to somehow obtain funds in order to create and maintain these services. However, severe reckless spending is void of a tax argument, because the government is clearly spending more money it can tax and borrow, by an astonishing scale.

Not at all attempting to be preachy. The point being, the deficit will still continue growing despite the tax increase.

rdx-fx wrote:

Cut back spending on wasteful bullshit programs.

Tighten the belt, so to speak, and take a hard look at what programs are essential governmental services and what are unaffordable luxuries in the current economic climate.

We either take the hard look now, while we can still afford most of the essential services,
or we run it until the wheels fall off, and we can't afford most of those essential services anymore.

Unfortunately, I think we've reached the terminal stage where the Public has figured out it can blackmail the politicians into giving them entitlement programs. This is the danger of a direct Democracy, as opposed to a fair representative Republic such as we started out with.
I totally agree. I think it needs to work in two ways.

First, the government needs to cut the levels of transfer payments it's making. While social security, medicade and medicare provide an important safety net to certain members of society, it is unsustainable - As more baby boomers retire, benefit payments will increasingly outgrow Social Security tax revenue.(State of the Union's Finances, Citizen's Guide April 2010). What legal requirement in the USA is there to contribute to a superannuation fund? While this is too late for the people retiring in the next 10 years, future retirees should place more importance on funding their own retirement. The entire health care system also needs an overhaul, and not just some universal healthcare thing. The system is incredibly inefficient (link), thus through proper reform you'd be able to achieve the same level of service for much less. However, given the number of special interest groups and all those lobbies, I doubt that would EVER happen..


Second, the government needs to ensure that any discretionary fiscal spending is well targeted. You need to get value for money, and it's something that hasn't been happening. I'll give you a few examples from Australia during the recent financial crisis. The "Building the Education Revolution" stimulus scheme was to use A$16.2bn to employ local firms and workers to upgrade facilities at schools across the nation. Sounds like a once in a lifetime chance to make world-class educational facilities and thus improve the future productivity of Australians? Psh. Nope.. it's been slammed in the media for going well over cost and not even delivering what school principle's need and want. And then we can't forget the bungled Energy Efficient Homes Package...
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6676

mcminty wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

mcminty wrote:

How else do you propose to reduce the deficit?
Cut spending, drastically. It is not possible to tax revenue to pay for the deficit and future debt from obligations that include, Medicaid, Medicare, and social security. It is just not possible, unless I'm greatly deceived by elementary math.
Yes, yes, duh. Of course that has to happen. But my point was that until government income > government spending, the deficit will continue to grow.
THEN CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING ALREADY YOU DIRTY LYING POLITICIANS.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command

=NHB=Shadow wrote:

RDMC wrote:

So wait..US top income tax is 35% now?

The fuck.
it's not like you make that much anyways
Considering the riff raff cited in your sig I would say, no u.


Has anyone mentioned that those formerly in the lower income bracket get the largest percentage increase?

From 10% to 15%.

That's some change.
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6492|...

FatherTed wrote:

seems to be working rather nicely for germany so far
Germans save more money than Amreekins
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

Tax hikes? Sounds fine to me. Our family business will just have to lay off a few people, I guess.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

1.3 trillion dollar deficit.
And government coffers don't expand when taxes go up.  When you tax something you get less of it.  Check the increases in revenue each time a tax decrease occurred in history.

Now only if we could get spending under control...
It depends...

Currently, personal income taxes are about as low as they feasibly can be in America, especially on the rich.  If you look at the personal income tax rates throughout the First World, most of them are considerably higher than ours.

Part of why personal taxes don't go much lower than ours is because they literally can't without amassing even bigger deficits than we currently have.

A lot of people like to cite Reagan's tax cuts as an example of how you can reduce taxes while still increase government revenue.  This happened back then because personal income taxes on the wealthy were about as high as you could possibly maintain.  When Reagan slashed these rates by a huge amount, this inspired a massive amount of economic growth, which in turn, allowed for more government revenue.

Unfortunately, we're on the opposite end of the spectrum now, where we've already passed the point where lowering taxes would actually increase government revenue.  We also have a tremendous amount of debt that we need to eliminate some of before our credit rating goes completely to shit.

This means that the end of these tax cuts is inevitable.  We can't postpone paying back these debts any longer.
The issue isn't tax rates. It is the number of people who actually pay taxes. Reagan's tax cuts worked because the number of actual people who payed taxes was much higher then than it is now. We have a smaller percentage of the population paying taxes now than ever before, thus a larger relative burden is on a smaller group of people.

SOURCE

Today, fewer people pay income taxes. In 1986, Americans filed 103 million federal income tax returns. Of those, 84 million had to pay some taxes. That's 81.5 percent of all returns. By the time Mr. Clinton took office, the percentage of filers paying taxes had declined to 75 percent. During the Bush years, the percentage of filers who paid taxes continued to decline. It fell to only 67.4 percent in 2005.

This is not a minor number. In 2005, 134 million American households filed tax returns. Only 90 million of them paid any taxes. While the number of households filing returns rose by 5 million, the number of households actually paying income taxes fell by 6 million. Basically, 11 million lower-income households don't have to pay income taxes that would have had to pay taxes before the Bush tax cuts.

Of course, the federal income tax isn't the only tax we pay. Anyone who works pays the employment tax, a stiff 15.3 percent of wage income. Republicans tend to forget this.

Today, the rich pay more, the poor pay less.  Bush tax rate cuts notwithstanding, those with high incomes pay at much higher marginal tax rates than those with lower incomes. They also pay much more of the total tax bill, a reality that has escaped Hillary Clinton  and Barack Obama. Only 953,000 taxpayers – about 1 percent of the total who paid taxes – paid at the top 35 percent tax rate in 2005. They paid $315.4 billion in taxes on their $1,094 billion in income.

The most common tax rate is 15 percent, which is paid by 54.4 million taxpayers. This means the typical taxpayer pays at less than half the tax rate of the top earners.

The second most common tax rate is 10 percent. About 25.5 million taxpayers pay at that rate. This group pays taxes at one-third the rate paid by the highest-income taxpayers. So of the two-thirds of all households that pay anything in income taxes, about three-quarters pay at 15 percent or less.

Among the remaining 25 percent of taxpayers:

• 22 million households pay income taxes at marginal rates of 25 percent.

• 3.7 million pay at 28 percent.

• 1.5 million pay at 33 percent.

In 2000, the top 25 percent of all taxpaying filers paid a whopping 83.6 percent of all income taxes. By 2005, they paid 85.6 percent of all taxes. So in spite of tax rate cuts for the well-off, the share of taxes paid by the well-off has risen.

What does this all mean?

Simple. When political talk turns to tax "fairness," none of the candidates mentions where a high income begins. So I thought you might want to know. You were in the top 25 percent of taxpayers in 2005 if your taxable income exceeded $61,055.

Millions of Americans have no idea what fat cats they are.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

The issue isn't tax rates. It is the number of people who actually pay taxes. Reagan's tax cuts worked because the number of actual people who payed taxes was much higher then than it is now. We have a smaller percentage of the population paying taxes now than ever before, thus a larger relative burden is on a smaller group of people.

SOURCE
Sorry, no.

You wanna know why the rich pay so much in taxes?  Because they have so much of the wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_ine … ted_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ine … ted_States

Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth.

Even if you increased the tax rate to 50% on all working class people, that would bring in less revenue than increasing the rate to 40% on the top 10% of earners.

The point is, the wealthy have to pay more, because they have most of the money.  In countries where the wealth distribution isn't so skewed, the tax rates don't have to be.

For example, tax rates in Canada are more evenhanded, because the wealth distribution is as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_taxes_in_Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-03 07:34:14)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard