| 11 NOV 2010 at 6:40am |
EyebiterCommander
Posts : 1231
Joined: 28 DEC 2004
Status : Offline | Funny how they plan to lower corporate income taxes but raise taxes on everyone else.
Buy your share of freedom... today!
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 7:10am |
Fitz505Centurion
Posts : 31
Joined: 6 NOV 2006
Status : Offline | Don't see anything about about cutting Medicaid or any welfare programs. Last week, our local newspaper reported that 1 out of 4 people in NY are collecting Medicaid and I'm looking at a double digit property tax increase to cover the Federal MANDATED cost.
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 7:11am |
BlakjackCenturion
Posts : 762
Joined: 5 JUL 2009
Location: US, OH
Status : Offline | In a related issue, a CO congressman has proposed forcing federal employees to take a two-week furlough next year. This in essence, will be a forced pay-cut without calling it a pay cut.
If you build an idiot-proof computer, someone will make a better idiot.
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 7:13am |
bboyer66Colonel
Posts : 4709
Joined: 17 APR 2006
Location: US, Pittsburgh PA
Status : Offline | This might be some good stuff because I hear both sides of the aisle whining about it.
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 7:28am |
WomfCenturion
Posts : 27
Joined: 10 SEP 2009
Status : Offline |
There is a small BBC blog that nicely sumarises some of the proposed cuts at a very high-level.
It also covers some of the problems associated with pushing these cuts through , i.e. everybody agrees with the the idea of cutting a deficit until the cuts directly impact them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 9:26am |
ActionJackColonel
Posts : 7881
Joined: 19 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | The loudest complaint I've heard thus far is over the ending of the home mortgage deduction. One commentator asked why buy a home without it. If the only valid reason for buying a home is the government manufactured incentive then owning a home is not very important. It's not like people won't still need a place to live so construction jobs are safe even if everyone is just renting.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 9:32am |
UKyankCenturion
Posts : 812
Joined: 13 FEB 2005
Status : Offline | Go radical & refund every penny paid into soc. security, stop collecting the tax and stop sending out any checks (i.e get rid of it totally) and that party will get the vote of every person under the age of 40
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 9:44am |
ActionJackColonel
Posts : 7881
Joined: 19 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By UKyank
Go radical & refund every penny paid into soc. security, stop collecting the tax and stop sending out any checks (i.e get rid of it totally) and that party will get the vote of every person under the age of 40
That may well be the proper dividing line to part company with this ponzi scheme.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 10:31am |
ActionJackColonel
Posts : 7881
Joined: 19 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | Here's the PDF.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/IllustrativeList.pdf
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 11:02am |
GreybriarCommander
Posts : 2703
Joined: 30 MAY 2008
Location: US
Status : Offline | Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.
This war is not about slavery. --Robert E. Lee
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 11:11am |
ActionJackColonel
Posts : 7881
Joined: 19 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Greybriar
Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.
Either cut benefits we can't pay for or go with hat in hand like Greece to get a bailout for the entire country, and like Greece, still lose the benefits. Which would you prefer?
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 11:52am |
GreybriarCommander
Posts : 2703
Joined: 30 MAY 2008
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By ActionJack
Originally Posted By Greybriar
Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.
Either cut benefits we can't pay for or go with hat in hand like Greece to get a bailout for the entire country, and like Greece, still lose the benefits. Which would you prefer?
Yeah, cut benefits because the politicians have given all the money away and now want to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers. Sounds perfectly logical to the politicians but not to me. [sm=00000018.gif]
This war is not about slavery. --Robert E. Lee
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 12:51pm |
medckCenturion
Posts : 681
Joined: 16 MAR 2004
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By ActionJack
Originally Posted By Greybriar
Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.
Either cut benefits we can't pay for or go with hat in hand like Greece to get a bailout for the entire country, and like Greece, still lose the benefits. Which would you prefer?
I don't know why you think we're somehow like Greece our debt to GDP ratio is about half what Greece's is; and it is a whole lot less than Japan's as well, a country that has a more serious age problem and is not considered by anyone to be in any trouble. That's just scare mongering.
Now, if the long-run picture for our spending is that discretionary and Social Security spending is on a sustainable path for forever. The one that explodes is health care. Here is a link:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/93xx/doc9385/06-17-LTBO_Testimony.pdf
Look on page 4, even under the pessimistic Alternative Fiscal Scenario it is all about health care costs.
I do have a quicker way to get ALL the deficit reduction of Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson (as opposed to the other 16 members of the committee) -- do nothing about the tax code. The Bush cuts will expire and from 2011-2020 we will have $3.9 trillion more in revenue over the decade and at rates that we've paid comfortably before. o everything Bowles and Simpson say (including 15 cents more per gallon in gas taxes and lots of defense cuts) and you only get $3.8 trillion over the same period and a debate that will make the health care debate look like a fun-filled party.
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 1:07pm |
ActionJackColonel
Posts : 7881
Joined: 19 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Greybriar
Originally Posted By ActionJack
Originally Posted By Greybriar
Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.
Either cut benefits we can't pay for or go with hat in hand like Greece to get a bailout for the entire country, and like Greece, still lose the benefits. Which would you prefer?
Yeah, cut benefits because the politicians have given all the money away and now want to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers. Sounds perfectly logical to the politicians but not to me. [sm=00000018.gif]
I'm not sure you fielded that last question so here's another. Since the money was spent, albeit foolishly, on the taxpayers, whose backs should bear the burden to pay it off?
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 1:13pm |
ActionJackColonel
Posts : 7881
Joined: 19 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | The Bush cuts will expire and from 2011-2020 we will have $3.9 trillion more in revenue over the decade and at rates that we've paid comfortably before.
We've been down this road already and we're not going to get that revenue from an economy that's not going to generate the profits necessary for such collections. Lack of water means less fruit from the vine; there's no getting around that. Not in 1932 and not now either.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 2:25pm |
GreybriarCommander
Posts : 2703
Joined: 30 MAY 2008
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By ActionJack
Originally Posted By Greybriar
Originally Posted By ActionJack
Originally Posted By Greybriar
Typical. The government bails out the banks, savings and loan institutions, railroads, airlines, auto industry, etc., etc. and then cuts benefits for U.S. citizens.
Either cut benefits we can't pay for or go with hat in hand like Greece to get a bailout for the entire country, and like Greece, still lose the benefits. Which would you prefer?
Yeah, cut benefits because the politicians have given all the money away and now want to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers. Sounds perfectly logical to the politicians but not to me. [sm=00000018.gif]
I'm not sure you fielded that last question so here's another. Since the money was spent, albeit foolishly, on the taxpayers, whose backs should bear the burden to pay it off?
Let me put it to you this way, AJ. It's the politicians' fault we are in this financial mess. If they "fix" it by reducing the taxpayers' Social Security and other benefits, they will muck things up again and we'll be right back where we are now. They appear to be a bunch of imbeciles without sense enough to quit spending money the country doesn't have. It's time to say no to their "fix." They're so smart let them come up with an alternative.
I'm sick and tired of paying for their mistakes. Let them pay for their own mistakes.
This war is not about slavery. --Robert E. Lee
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 3:42pm |
ActionJackColonel
Posts : 7881
Joined: 19 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | Let me put it to you this way, AJ. It's the politicians' fault we are in this financial mess. If they "fix" it by reducing the taxpayers' Social Security and other benefits, they will muck things up again and we'll be right back where we are now. They appear to be a bunch of imbeciles without sense enough to quit spending money the country doesn't have. It's time to say no to their "fix." They're so smart let them come up with an alternative.
Sounds like you got a solution you seem to believe is obvious. Well, it's not so how about sharing.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 3:57pm |
medckCenturion
Posts : 681
Joined: 16 MAR 2004
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By ActionJack
The Bush cuts will expire and from 2011-2020 we will have $3.9 trillion more in revenue over the decade and at rates that we've paid comfortably before.
We've been down this road already and we're not going to get that revenue from an economy that's not going to generate the profits necessary for such collections. Lack of water means less fruit from the vine; there's no getting around that. Not in 1932 and not now either.
Yes, we went down this road from 1993-2000 and it eliminated the deficit, reduced the debt and provided a stable government framework for economic growth. Business needs policy stability not erratic movements -- and it also helps to get the fiscal house in order. Holding the line on future spending and having realistic tax rates for existing obligations enables businesses to plan more readily. Stop-go policies rarely work well; stable policies are much more helpful.
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 4:11pm |
ActionJackColonel
Posts : 7881
Joined: 19 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By medck
Originally Posted By ActionJack
The Bush cuts will expire and from 2011-2020 we will have $3.9 trillion more in revenue over the decade and at rates that we've paid comfortably before.
We've been down this road already and we're not going to get that revenue from an economy that's not going to generate the profits necessary for such collections. Lack of water means less fruit from the vine; there's no getting around that. Not in 1932 and not now either.
Yes, we went down this road from 1993-2000 and it eliminated the deficit, reduced the debt and provided a stable government framework for economic growth. Business needs policy stability not erratic movements -- and it also helps to get the fiscal house in order. Holding the line on future spending and having realistic tax rates for existing obligations enables businesses to plan more readily. Stop-go policies rarely work well; stable policies are much more helpful.
Not quite right because it leaves a false impression that Clinton somehow saved the day. It purposely omits the tried and true formula practiced by Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan which fueled that growth in the economy. It also mentions nothing of the discipline enforced upon Clinton's administration by the 1994 midterm elections after the first attempt at socializing medicine failed. You'll get a chance to relive it all again and this time you and Krugman can believe your lying eyes.
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
In what year was the greatest collection of tax revenue by the federal government?????
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 4:15pm |
KevlarSocksColonel
Posts : 5988
Joined: 11 SEP 2005
Status : Offline |
David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director, tells Lesley Stahl that even if the government raises taxes on the rich and everyone else - some tough spending cuts will have to be made.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009246n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.8#ixzz151Dutu4m
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 4:19pm |
ActionJackColonel
Posts : 7881
Joined: 19 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By KevlarSocks
David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director, tells Lesley Stahl that even if the government raises taxes on the rich and everyone else - some tough spending cuts will have to be made.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009246n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.8#ixzz151Dutu4m
There are certainly some bitter pills to swallow in the panel's recommendations.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 4:35pm |
KevlarSocksColonel
Posts : 5988
Joined: 11 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | This was his full interview:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009217n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Best part:
But, as David Stockman will tell you, that attitude is hard to find. "We've demonized taxes. All right. We've created almost the idea they're a metaphysical evil," he said.
[size="3"]Still, he says there should be a one-time 15 percent surtax on the wealthy that he estimates would cut the national debt in half.
"In 1985, the top five percent of the households, wealthiest five percent, had net worth of $8 trillion, which is a lot. Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five percent have net worth of $40 trillion," he explained. [size="3"]"The top five percent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980."
"Of course it would never pass. There's the rub," Stahl remarked.
"There's the rub," he agreed.
The antipathy to raising any taxes or making any real spending cuts, whether in Washington D.C. or Washington State, is so intense, Stockman despairs that when Congress returns after the election, they'll do what they often do: nothing.
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 5:24pm |
KevlarSocksColonel
Posts : 5988
Joined: 11 SEP 2005
Status : Offline | [size="3"]"The top five percent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980."
[size="2"]In other words its mostly an accounting sham, which is why fear of the bubble bursting is so real. Yes, when Hank said on a Friday that the financial system could vaporize by Tuesday he wasn't kidding.
|
| 11 NOV 2010 at 5:26pm |
medckCenturion
Posts : 681
Joined: 16 MAR 2004
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By ActionJack
Not quite right because it leaves a false impression that Clinton somehow saved the day. It purposely omits the tried and true formula practiced by Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan which fueled that growth in the economy. It also mentions nothing of the discipline enforced upon Clinton's administration by the 1994 midterm elections after the first attempt at socializing medicine failed. You'll get a chance to relive it all again and this time you and Krugman can believe your lying eyes.
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
In what year was the greatest collection of tax revenue by the federal government?????
On the contrary, I think both Bush I and Clinton came to the rescue. Reagan raised taxes in 1986 anyways, so I doubt that really supports your case.
I like how you cherry-pick quotes. Here's what JFK thought about tax rates:
"I shall propose a permanent reduction in tax rates .... Of this, $11 billion results from reducing individual tax rates, which now range between 20 and 91 percent, to a more sensible range of 14 to 65 percent". John F. Kennedy, State of the Union, 14 January 1963.
I happen to think 65% is too high. I'd settle for the 1990s rate of 39%.
As for maximum tax revenue. Maximum income tax revenue in real terms was in 2000 at $1.0T; individual income tax revenue was $920 billion (2000 dollars) in 2008. Maximum overall tax revenue (nominal, not real) was in 2007, but that is only due to record corporate and social security tax revenue -- and those rates were unchanged from the 1990s. Your individual income tax cuts can't claim credit for additional revenue from other, unchanged, taxes.
|
