RE: New GOP Tax Plan

RE: New GOP Tax Plan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

AtUrCervix -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 4:10:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 at the same time, and I don't know the details of the overall picture/plan---does the thought of ever cutting back expenses enter into the comrades' minds? god forbid the people should be allowed to hang on to more of their OWN money as opposed to having the leviathan take more and more of it. That is certainly in my opinion, a far bigger issue. Interestingly....there is so much the government spends money on that is part of the GDP (some, intentionally wasteful...solely to put money in the hands of spenders). There is logic to the madness even where it seems the most insane. It does however, seem rational to cut spending....even if it's painful because, like heroin....at some point you just have to go through the withdrawals....bite the bullet so to speak. It was attempted a few times but, literally, since Reagan turned the spigots on....no president has had the guts to turn them off (including Clinton).

AtUrCervix -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 4:25:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It won’t work because it’s based on wishful thinking. If either of us ran our businesses that way, we’d have negative cash flow. As does the US. This “plan” (it’s really blind, unsupported hope) will exacerbate that deficit. Your argument presumes the ongoing debate: "Can't do 3% GDP annual growth".... Valid...it's a tough bet but...we've now had 2 quarters of "can't do it" (and....did it). And, we just finished a quarter of "can't do it" (and did it)....PLUS.....3% improved productivity (which is basically....3% GDP + Steroids). So....I'm thinking.....for 10+ months we've seen "can't do it"......do it...... I say we all chill and let the man try. No, my argument presumes that wishing for 3% improved productivity is not a plan. As you put it, 3% GDP + Steroids. It's wishful thinking. If there's a solid cause/effect plan, let's hear it. But we're not hearing it. Because there is no plan. I would 1,000% agree, there hasn't been a plan (yet), but, I'm willing to at least see if the plan being formulated has any positive impact. We are sooooooo far down the rabbit hole, I can't see any plan (from either side) that isn't more of the same but, I have to give the guy some credit in that (and they are painful), he is promoting cuts, they are long term, he is using a knife in many places (and again...I get it...they will be painful)...but therein lies the biggest issue: No one has been willing to cut before. There's a proposal to raise the gas tax by 7 cents to pay for the infrastructure bill. It's only 7 cents because getting 25 cents through would be impossible but....50 cents in my opinion would be far better for the country. We've been taxed by the Middle East for 40 years....but THEY get the money...not us. How many times did all of us say "when it gets to $2.00....I ain't driving"...."when it gets to $3.00....I ain't driving"....."when it gets to $4.00....I ain't driving"....and yet...we all continued driving....or bought better MPG vehicles. And what ALWAAAAAYYYYYS happens when gas falls? Truck sales go through the ceiling. We're a far bigger problem than the feds are. We all want bigger roads, faster this, better that....and no one wants to pay for it. The wealthy don't pay SSI. Why? Because they have "unearned (non hourly) income". Why is capital gains taxed at lower rates than middle class earnings? Everyone wants a fair tax....but, it's not fair (in my opinion) that some pay different rates because they earn it with income as opposed to labor. I've heard my Republican friends say the tired old line "20% pay 80% of the federal income tax"....which, for the record, is 100% true. Except...it's also misleading. Federal income tax (that which we all essentially write a check for in April, for easy discussion purposes) is (approx.) 47% of total tax receipts. SSI (that which is paid only on hourly earnings....no other) is about 44% or so...the remainder (corporate tax, gas taxes, etc.) are the remainder. The wealthy DO pay 80% of one of those...but when you add them all together, the 20% pay approx. 49% of all federal taxes, the 80% pay about 51%. Still skewed, but now a wholly different picture appears. And, one where I think it becomes arguable that the wealthy can afford to pay slightly more but....the key here is....everyone needs to as well. "They" aren't the problem....and "they" aren't the solution...."we" are.

bounty44 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 4:49:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix It does however, seem rational to cut spending....even if it's painful because, like heroin....at some point you just have to go through the withdrawals....bite the bullet so to speak. It was attempted a few times but, literally, since Reagan turned the spigots on....no president has had the guts to turn them off (including Clinton). I think what that speaks to more than anything is the lure of power, public opinion, and the somewhat fickle selfishness of the public. "what do I have to do to stay in office? and "sure---lets cut government expenses, just not the ones that affect ME." its a trap.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 5:12:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is supply side economics [sic] reprise that never ever produces the revenue to replace or 'fund' the tax cut. The whole debate centers around nothing but economic semantics such as something called dynamic scoring (not any of our scoring) which I guess this gets its name from the assumption of some resulting new 'dynamic' is created. Never happens. The US needs more dollar velocity (more dollars in and changing more hands) which is what sustains and creates more demand for the economy as a whole. That's what needed to create more demand and jobs. I don't think you could be more correct here. Well said. I am no economist, but got a B (was soooo close to an A in Economics 101 in college). We discussed this very topic numerous times in class. Yes, it is true... IF: 1. There already IS a strong consumer class (middle class) 2. There is easy access to capital (supply) Then... Investment in new products or expansion of product lines (or new businesses) emerge, which in turn creates more jobs and spurs more demand, and the cycle continues. HOWEVER... If there is no demand in the first place, putting more money in the hands of corporations or even mom and pop small businesses simply results in hoarding of cash. Someone posted about Democrats citing Kansas as an example. I am no Democrat, but Kansas is a POSTER child for this. Don't like Kansas as an example? How about the entire U.S.? Tons of access to capital. Economic growth still slow. Think, just for a second how utterly insane PURE supply side economics is. Let's say, I am Steve. The owner of "Steve's Bike Shop" (Some might get the reference). I open my Bike shop in a fairly well off area, and I do ok selling bikes (a little better than breaking even overall). Demand for bikes used to be better in the past, but has declined. I man the store, and have 5 employees. And now, I get this great tax cut because I pass through my Bike shop income. What do I do with my tax savings on my personal income tax? Hire more employees that I don't need (and turn my break-even business into a loss), solely because it is my PERSONAL DUTY to help the economy? Buy more bikes from my suppliers that I can't sell so my SUPPLIERS can hire more people? And yes, from a PERSONAL finance perspective, my tax cut is great. But in terms a funding my business??? Could I even AFFORD another employee with it? (And how would that help my business if I could?) I smile, because I have had this EXACT conversation with the local bike shop owner here on the island. Large businesses have been hoarding massive amounts of cash for years. There is your supply. Why don't they just spend it all in new investment in product lines or expansions? Say it with me.... NO DEMAAAAAAAND This should be very basic and obvious stuff to everyone. Then there is the Ronald Reagan myth. Every right winger has been indoctrinated. "Ronald Regan lowered taxes and grew the economy out of a recession"... Well... NO. He did reform the tax code. (A very good thing). In 1980, we had 20 tax brackets when he took office, going up to 70% (but with massive loopholes. NO One paid it) The ERTA reduced that down to 50% and got rid of a LOT of the loopholes (which lobbyists have been steadily reinstating over the years and find many new ones). The ERTA provided a tiny (about 2-3% tax cut for everyone else) The 1986 TRA simplified the tax code roughly similar to what we have now, with top rate at 39.6(ish). (And we had 5 brackets) So, yes... killed a tax rate that NO one was paying anyway. Got rid of the loopholes people were using to avoid paying it, and increased revenue. GREAT. And of course Reagan created the largest tax in American history (the gas tax), and was the father of taxing unemployment benefits. (NICE) But did that stimulate the economy? Ummmmm NO. What stimulated the economy then? A MASSIVE Economic Stimulus package!!!! His MASSIVE deficit spending, primarily on defense, and ADDING 300,000 jobs to the Federal payroll. The massive defense spending spurred advances in many areas of technology (aerospace, and Information technology), which in turn created more jobs. It is THIS area (Information Technology) which created the boom of mini computers, and corporate use of UNIX, and client server technology, which in turn created an environment for me to start my career, and get me where I am today. Thank you Ronald Reagan for your Obama style Economic Stimulus (Demand side, Keynsesian economics). So, the next time you hear Newt Gingrich, yammer on about how Ronald Reagan, through conservative supply side principles, SAVED the economy, you can do some research for him.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 5:19:23 AM)
quote: does the thought of ever cutting back expenses enter into the comrades' minds? Sure it does, if you guys would just stop buying tanks your army doesn't want you could save billions. Buy a few less new fighters and there's billions more. Lots of money to be saved if you are really serious about it, but we all know you aren't.

bounty44 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 5:35:05 AM)
left, right and middle value different things when it comes to expenses, so these numbers are helpful in the discussion: quote: During FY2016, the federal government spent $3.27 trillion on a budget or cash basis, up $18 billion or 1% vs. FY2015 spending of $3.25 trillion. Major categories of FY 2016 spending included: 1.Healthcare such as Medicare and Medicaid ($1,060B or 28% of spending), 2.Social Security ($910B or 24%), 3.Non-defense discretionary spending used to run federal Departments and Agencies ($600B or 16%), 4.Defense Department ($585B or 15%), 5.Interest ($240B or 6%).[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget so talking about buying "less tanks" doesn't quite cut it so much as looking at other, more expensive, and perhaps less needful places. and then there is this somewhat scary looking gem: [image]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png/400px-Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png[/image]

DesideriScuri -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 5:46:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 left, right and middle value different things when it comes to expenses, so these numbers are helpful in the discussion: quote: During FY2016, the federal government spent $3.27 trillion on a budget or cash basis, up $18 billion or 1% vs. FY2015 spending of $3.25 trillion. Major categories of FY 2016 spending included: 1.Healthcare such as Medicare and Medicaid ($1,060B or 28% of spending), 2.Social Security ($910B or 24%), 3.Non-defense discretionary spending used to run federal Departments and Agencies ($600B or 16%), 4.Defense Department ($585B or 15%), 5.Interest ($240B or 6%).[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget so talking about buying "less tanks" doesn't quite cut it so much as looking at other, more expensive, and perhaps less needful places. and then there is this somewhat scary looking gem: [image]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png/400px-Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png[/image] Geez, if you read MJ's reply above yours, it looks like we should be spending more on defense.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 6:15:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 left, right and middle value different things when it comes to expenses, so these numbers are helpful in the discussion: quote: During FY2016, the federal government spent $3.27 trillion on a budget or cash basis, up $18 billion or 1% vs. FY2015 spending of $3.25 trillion. Major categories of FY 2016 spending included: 1.Healthcare such as Medicare and Medicaid ($1,060B or 28% of spending), 2.Social Security ($910B or 24%), 3.Non-defense discretionary spending used to run federal Departments and Agencies ($600B or 16%), 4.Defense Department ($585B or 15%), 5.Interest ($240B or 6%).[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget so talking about buying "less tanks" doesn't quite cut it so much as looking at other, more expensive, and perhaps less needful places. and then there is this somewhat scary looking gem: [image]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png/400px-Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png[/image] Geez, if you read MJ's reply above yours, it looks like we should be spending more on defense. It's all in the timing... It just so happened... In the 80's, it happened to be the right time in Information technology for defense contractors to invest and change the game in terms of what type of skills would be needed, as well as opened the door for companies to have their own significant IT shops. I am not saying that spending in Defense is always the answer. What I am saying, is that in the 80's... Defense was Reagan's Economic Stimulus. Infrastructure was Obama's (but was not nearly enough) The trick of Economic Stimulus... is that it has to fuel a game changer (new opportunities, new skills, more people needed). Those opportunities are an opportunity of the moment. (Just like every other major investment). (And it has to be "shovel ready!")

bounty44 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 6:22:16 AM)
this part? quote: His MASSIVE deficit spending, primarily on defense, and ADDING 300,000 jobs to the Federal payroll. The massive defense spending spurred advances in many areas of technology (aerospace, and Information technology), which in turn created more jobs. It is THIS area (Information Technology) which created the boom of mini computers, and corporate use of UNIX, and client server technology, which in turn created an environment for me to start my career, and get me where I am today. Thank you Ronald Reagan for your Obama style Economic Stimulus (Demand side, Keynsesian economics). So, the next time you hear Newt Gingrich, yammer on about how Ronald Reagan, through conservative supply side principles, SAVED the economy, you can do some research for him. ...which I notice isn't substantiated with an unequivocal consensus of economists' stamp of approval---but rather just his erroneously premised self-serving bicycle shop example.

MrRodgers -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 7:36:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 this part? quote: His MASSIVE deficit spending, primarily on defense, and ADDING 300,000 jobs to the Federal payroll. The massive defense spending spurred advances in many areas of technology (aerospace, and Information technology), which in turn created more jobs. It is THIS area (Information Technology) which created the boom of mini computers, and corporate use of UNIX, and client server technology, which in turn created an environment for me to start my career, and get me where I am today. Thank you Ronald Reagan for your Obama style Economic Stimulus (Demand side, Keynsesian economics). So, the next time you hear Newt Gingrich, yammer on about how Ronald Reagan, through conservative supply side principles, SAVED the economy, you can do some research for him. ...which I notice isn't substantiated with an unequivocal consensus of economists' stamp of approval---but rather just his erroneously premised self-serving bicycle shop example. What is 'unequivocal consensus of economists' stamp of approval' is that after the dems worked with Reagan and gave him his tax cuts, the federal treas. went immediately into deficit. Then under the great propaganda of reforming soc. sec....Reagan/Greenspan, tripled the payroll [soc. sec. tax] the over payment of which was immediately borrowed and squandered and sanctioned by virtually every 'conservative' 'fiscally responsible' [sic] repub admin. and congress since. Our great nation of laws and egalitarian pragmatism, the great conservative tide had finally come to power to do what ? To con the American people into thinking that repubs were borrowing $3 trillion, used that over payment to keep it that low while still seeking gravitas as conservatives, being fiscally conservative. [sic] That not only didn't change for Reagan's 8 years but actually got worse. When Bush I took office and continued the tax policy, he saw the fiscal writing on the wall and has to raise revenue even still...not enough. Supply side tax cuts is a semantic driven bullshit premise suggesting a reduction in tax rates yields more in tax revenue. Even Bush I called it voodoo economics...because it was.

Musicmystery -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 7:54:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It won’t work because it’s based on wishful thinking. If either of us ran our businesses that way, we’d have negative cash flow. As does the US. This “plan” (it’s really blind, unsupported hope) will exacerbate that deficit. Your argument presumes the ongoing debate: "Can't do 3% GDP annual growth".... Valid...it's a tough bet but...we've now had 2 quarters of "can't do it" (and....did it). And, we just finished a quarter of "can't do it" (and did it)....PLUS.....3% improved productivity (which is basically....3% GDP + Steroids). So....I'm thinking.....for 10+ months we've seen "can't do it"......do it...... I say we all chill and let the man try. No, my argument presumes that wishing for 3% improved productivity is not a plan. As you put it, 3% GDP + Steroids. It's wishful thinking. If there's a solid cause/effect plan, let's hear it. But we're not hearing it. Because there is no plan. I would 1,000% agree, there hasn't been a plan (yet), but, I'm willing to at least see if the plan being formulated has any positive impact. We are sooooooo far down the rabbit hole, I can't see any plan (from either side) that isn't more of the same but, I have to give the guy some credit in that (and they are painful), he is promoting cuts, they are long term, he is using a knife in many places (and again...I get it...they will be painful)...but therein lies the biggest issue: No one has been willing to cut before. There's a proposal to raise the gas tax by 7 cents to pay for the infrastructure bill. It's only 7 cents because getting 25 cents through would be impossible but....50 cents in my opinion would be far better for the country. We've been taxed by the Middle East for 40 years....but THEY get the money...not us. How many times did all of us say "when it gets to $2.00....I ain't driving"...."when it gets to $3.00....I ain't driving"....."when it gets to $4.00....I ain't driving"....and yet...we all continued driving....or bought better MPG vehicles. And what ALWAAAAAYYYYYS happens when gas falls? Truck sales go through the ceiling. We're a far bigger problem than the feds are. We all want bigger roads, faster this, better that....and no one wants to pay for it. The wealthy don't pay SSI. Why? Because they have "unearned (non hourly) income". Why is capital gains taxed at lower rates than middle class earnings? Everyone wants a fair tax....but, it's not fair (in my opinion) that some pay different rates because they earn it with income as opposed to labor. I've heard my Republican friends say the tired old line "20% pay 80% of the federal income tax"....which, for the record, is 100% true. Except...it's also misleading. Federal income tax (that which we all essentially write a check for in April, for easy discussion purposes) is (approx.) 47% of total tax receipts. SSI (that which is paid only on hourly earnings....no other) is about 44% or so...the remainder (corporate tax, gas taxes, etc.) are the remainder. The wealthy DO pay 80% of one of those...but when you add them all together, the 20% pay approx. 49% of all federal taxes, the 80% pay about 51%. Still skewed, but now a wholly different picture appears. And, one where I think it becomes arguable that the wealthy can afford to pay slightly more but....the key here is....everyone needs to as well. "They" aren't the problem....and "they" aren't the solution...."we" are. After a decade of whining, they don't even know what a health care plan would look like. Face reality. There is no plan. There's just a windfall opportunity, and they're taking it if they can.

Musicmystery -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 7:57:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 at the same time, and I don't know the details of the overall picture/plan---does the thought of ever cutting back expenses enter into the comrades' minds? god forbid the people should be allowed to hang on to more of their OWN money as opposed to having the leviathan take more and more of it. That is certainly in my opinion, a far bigger issue. Interestingly....there is so much the government spends money on that is part of the GDP (some, intentionally wasteful...solely to put money in the hands of spenders). There is logic to the madness even where it seems the most insane. It does however, seem rational to cut spending....even if it's painful because, like heroin....at some point you just have to go through the withdrawals....bite the bullet so to speak. It was attempted a few times but, literally, since Reagan turned the spigots on....no president has had the guts to turn them off (including Clinton). bounty, does the thought of cuts to pay for this ever enter the GOP/conservative/alt-right minds???? Because there's nothing but "I have faith the economy will magically grow to generate more than the foregone revenue." A faith based on nothing but a belief in an already oft-discredited ideology. It is NO different than the "comrades" wanting services with no idea how to fund them. BOTH are mindless, simplistic, frankly child-like ideologies. And this "plan" is a prime example.

Musicmystery -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 8:05:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse All of the current growth is because of Obamas economic plan. Just ask the liberal posters here. After 8 years of the right insisting the Clinton economy was Reagan's policies finally kicking in . . . bullshit to both groups.

Musicmystery -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 8:07:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 left, right and middle value different things when it comes to expenses, so these numbers are helpful in the discussion: quote: During FY2016, the federal government spent $3.27 trillion on a budget or cash basis, up $18 billion or 1% vs. FY2015 spending of $3.25 trillion. Major categories of FY 2016 spending included: 1.Healthcare such as Medicare and Medicaid ($1,060B or 28% of spending), 2.Social Security ($910B or 24%), 3.Non-defense discretionary spending used to run federal Departments and Agencies ($600B or 16%), 4.Defense Department ($585B or 15%), 5.Interest ($240B or 6%).[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget so talking about buying "less tanks" doesn't quite cut it so much as looking at other, more expensive, and perhaps less needful places. and then there is this somewhat scary looking gem: [image]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png/400px-Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png[/image] Geez, if you read MJ's reply above yours, it looks like we should be spending more on defense. It's all in the timing... It just so happened... In the 80's, it happened to be the right time in Information technology for defense contractors to invest and change the game in terms of what type of skills would be needed, as well as opened the door for companies to have their own significant IT shops. I am not saying that spending in Defense is always the answer. What I am saying, is that in the 80's... Defense was Reagan's Economic Stimulus. Infrastructure was Obama's (but was not nearly enough) The trick of Economic Stimulus... is that it has to fuel a game changer (new opportunities, new skills, more people needed). Those opportunities are an opportunity of the moment. (Just like every other major investment). (And it has to be "shovel ready!") Defense was also Reagan's way of quadrupling the national debt, turning the largest creditor nation in the world into the largest debtor nation in the world, with 25% of our assets foreign owned, in just 8 years.

Musicmystery -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 8:09:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It won’t work because it’s based on wishful thinking. If either of us ran our businesses that way, we’d have negative cash flow. As does the US. This “plan” (it’s really blind, unsupported hope) will exacerbate that deficit. Your argument presumes the ongoing debate: "Can't do 3% GDP annual growth".... Valid...it's a tough bet but...we've now had 2 quarters of "can't do it" (and....did it). And, we just finished a quarter of "can't do it" (and did it)....PLUS.....3% improved productivity (which is basically....3% GDP + Steroids). So....I'm thinking.....for 10+ months we've seen "can't do it"......do it...... I say we all chill and let the man try. No, my argument presumes that wishing for 3% improved productivity is not a plan. As you put it, 3% GDP + Steroids. It's wishful thinking. If there's a solid cause/effect plan, let's hear it. But we're not hearing it. Because there is no plan. I would 1,000% agree, there hasn't been a plan (yet), but, I'm willing to at least see if the plan being formulated has any positive impact. We are sooooooo far down the rabbit hole, I can't see any plan (from either side) that isn't more of the same but, I have to give the guy some credit in that (and they are painful), he is promoting cuts, they are long term, he is using a knife in many places (and again...I get it...they will be painful)...but therein lies the biggest issue: No one has been willing to cut before. There's a proposal to raise the gas tax by 7 cents to pay for the infrastructure bill. It's only 7 cents because getting 25 cents through would be impossible but....50 cents in my opinion would be far better for the country. We've been taxed by the Middle East for 40 years....but THEY get the money...not us. How many times did all of us say "when it gets to $2.00....I ain't driving"...."when it gets to $3.00....I ain't driving"....."when it gets to $4.00....I ain't driving"....and yet...we all continued driving....or bought better MPG vehicles. And what ALWAAAAAYYYYYS happens when gas falls? Truck sales go through the ceiling. We're a far bigger problem than the feds are. We all want bigger roads, faster this, better that....and no one wants to pay for it. The wealthy don't pay SSI. Why? Because they have "unearned (non hourly) income". Why is capital gains taxed at lower rates than middle class earnings? Everyone wants a fair tax....but, it's not fair (in my opinion) that some pay different rates because they earn it with income as opposed to labor. I've heard my Republican friends say the tired old line "20% pay 80% of the federal income tax"....which, for the record, is 100% true. Except...it's also misleading. Federal income tax (that which we all essentially write a check for in April, for easy discussion purposes) is (approx.) 47% of total tax receipts. SSI (that which is paid only on hourly earnings....no other) is about 44% or so...the remainder (corporate tax, gas taxes, etc.) are the remainder. The wealthy DO pay 80% of one of those...but when you add them all together, the 20% pay approx. 49% of all federal taxes, the 80% pay about 51%. Still skewed, but now a wholly different picture appears. And, one where I think it becomes arguable that the wealthy can afford to pay slightly more but....the key here is....everyone needs to as well. "They" aren't the problem....and "they" aren't the solution...."we" are. For the record, I wasn't against Bush's tax cuts just for the wealthy -- I was against ALL of them (and still am). It was stupid, reckless, and financially irresponsible. Unless magic growth happened for no reason at all as a result of no plan at all resembling reality. Oddly, that led to two back to back recessions instead. Gosh. Imagine that.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 8:21:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 this part? quote: His MASSIVE deficit spending, primarily on defense, and ADDING 300,000 jobs to the Federal payroll. The massive defense spending spurred advances in many areas of technology (aerospace, and Information technology), which in turn created more jobs. It is THIS area (Information Technology) which created the boom of mini computers, and corporate use of UNIX, and client server technology, which in turn created an environment for me to start my career, and get me where I am today. Thank you Ronald Reagan for your Obama style Economic Stimulus (Demand side, Keynsesian economics). So, the next time you hear Newt Gingrich, yammer on about how Ronald Reagan, through conservative supply side principles, SAVED the economy, you can do some research for him. ...which I notice isn't substantiated with an unequivocal consensus of economists' stamp of approval---but rather just his erroneously premised self-serving bicycle shop example. I am sorry you didn't understand my correctly premised, very illustrative bicycle shop example. As for Reagan's massive deficit spending on defense AND adding 300000 jobs to the Federal payroll (small government... Ha!)... It is well known and well documented. (No need for an unequivocal consensus of economists. (Why not a consensus of Gynecologists or Longshoremen, or ANYONE else old enough to remember the 80's or who has access to Google???)) As Reagan's Economic Stimulus... This is a great article... https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/reagan-bush-and-obama-we-are-all-still-keynesians In the real world that rarely intrudes upon conservative economists and voters, both parties (and all Presidents) are Keynesians. Whenever the economy falters and private-sector spending declines, they use the tax-and-spending system to inject more demand into the economy. In 1981, Ronald Reagan did precisely this, slashing taxes and increasing defense spending. Between 2001 and 2003, George W. Bush followed the same script, introducing three sets of tax cuts and starting two wars. In February, 2009, Barack Obama introduced his stimulus. The real policy debate isn’t about Keynesianism versus the free market, it is about magnitudes and techniques: How much stimulus is necessary? And how should it be divided between government spending and tax cuts? Krugman (oh no comrades!) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinion/krugman-reagan-was-a-keynesian.html Oh no comrades! It's Huff Post (OK... Not a source I usually read) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bunch/tearing-down-the-reagan-m_b_443914.html Reagan had a big-spending economic stimulus plan. It’s true. As noted in the book, the economic turnaround of the 1980s had little or nothing to do with Reagan’s income tax cut that was heavily weighted to the rich but was instead the result of other factors, including the tight money policies of then-Fed chairman Paul Volcker (now an Obama adviser) and a global collapse of oil prices. But there was something else: Reagan also created thousands upon thousands of new jobs across America with a spending program that caused the federal deficit to skyrocket. It was called the Reagan defense buildup.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 8:26:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Defense was also Reagan's way of quadrupling the national debt, turning the largest creditor nation in the world into the largest debtor nation in the world, with 25% of our assets foreign owned, in just 8 years. 100% True. However Clinton, just a decade later balanced the budget (to be fair, with the help of a fiscally conservative Republican Congress) in a booming economy (made possible in large part by the technological gains in the 80's, which were made possible in large part to Regan's defense spending) In fact, we were actually talking about paying off the national debt at that time (operating a surplus)... Until.... Bush/Cheney :(

Musicmystery -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 8:56:27 AM)
Kinda like borrowing 3x my annual income, spending it all, and proclaiming how well I'm doing now. It would be stupid. So was the Reagan gamble, and especially the Bush return to knowing what doesn't work. And now . . . here we go again.

AtUrCervix -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 10:24:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery For the record, I wasn't against Bush's tax cuts just for the wealthy -- I was against ALL of them (and still am). It was stupid, reckless, and financially irresponsible. Unless magic growth happened for no reason at all as a result of no plan at all resembling reality. Oddly, that led to two back to back recessions instead. Gosh. Imagine that. Interestingly, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Warren Buffet and multiple others, all came out and said (I said, here in these forums) at the time "no one needs these tax cuts....let's stay on the path of surpluses to pay down the debt". I don't think the current tax cuts are needed either....and, moreover, I don't think the middle class or the poor should get (current) tax cuts either. In my opinion (unfortunately, no one has called for my opinion), I think they simply need to make the tax code fair. What does that mean to me? The rates are perfectly fine (largely). Charge everyone at every level of income social security tax (which, if done, would lower the "take" to likely less than 4% or so, versus 15% today....providing the middle class and poor with an immediate 10+% increase in pay). Get rid of capital gains taxes. All that does is allow the uber wealthy to pay between 15% (long term held) to 29% (short term held) instead of the 39.75% they're purportedly taxed at (they're really not), change their rate to 32% but make them pay it (instead of the above, which is what really happens)....and get rid of the estate tax....that truly is a double taxation. Doesn't matter that it will benefit the supremely wealthy....it's simply unfair. All that small farm stuff is just warm and fuzzy talk to get everyone on board...the truth is...it's already been taxed....so any further taxation is unfair and...if the system is to be fair....that ain't. And, I think a budget item of 2% annually towards debt repayment ought to be law. There ya have it....my tax plan.

AtUrCervix -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/4/2017 10:25:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Defense was also Reagan's way of quadrupling the national debt, turning the largest creditor nation in the world into the largest debtor nation in the world, with 25% of our assets foreign owned, in just 8 years. 100% True. However Clinton, just a decade later balanced the budget (to be fair, with the help of a fiscally conservative Republican Congress) in a booming economy (made possible in large part by the technological gains in the 80's, which were made possible in large part to Regan's defense spending) In fact, we were actually talking about paying off the national debt at that time (operating a surplus)... Until.... Bush/Cheney :( "kind of"....the debt still rose (hidden items....just like today). It was moving in the right direction however.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625