quote Originally posted by cliffw: It ain't the taking in of any amount of absolute dollars. It is the never ending increases in spending and the cry for more taxes that I find egregious. Gooberment has a spending problem. Actually, gooberment is a problem. We have an over redundancy in agencies. All vying for power and a larger budget. All with wasteful spending. Did you find a country with a higher tax rate ? There ain't one. Yeah, we got deductions. Our tax code is a joke in of itself.

yup. and playing "world police" is at the root of it.
how many "intelligence" agencies? how many military branches? how many Police agencies?
its a crazy expensive alphabet soup of acronyms.
yes - there most certainly is a spending problem.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: ... and playing "world police" is at the root of it.

No, it's not. When did we become the world's police ?

quote Originally posted by newf: Hmmmmm maybe they were thinking that it's about time the U.S. healthcare benefited everyone like pretty much every other first world nation. AND maybe they were thinking that overspending on their military while touting things like "We are the most powerful nation in the world... we could quite possibly destroy half the countries in this world while fending off attacks from all others, at the same time. We are the most technologically sophisticated, and the most economically powerful." is probably what other empires did before their collapse.

You're very much missing my point... it's not about military, it's about what we are economically capable of doing. I should never assume that someone automatically knows what I'm thinking (that's my problem). We have (HAD) the financial where-with-all to pretty much do anything... whether that's to destroy half the world, or save it.

I will tell you what socialism DOES do, however... and that is that it breeds laziness. Humans are inherently lazy, we are... that's just what it is... it's part of what still makes us animals.

If you put a nice juicy steak into a cage with a hungry lion, and put a gazelle on the other side of the cage with him, he's going to eat the steak, because he's ****ing lazy. And that's how humans are too... if you give them a hand-out... a continuous one, it reduces the desire to work hard. There are a lot of emotional and moral reasons you can apply to wanting socialized medicine... that's great, it's very nobel... but the Democrats in charge aren't concerned about giving health care to people... it's about obtaining control of 1/5th of the nation's economy. With Obamacare... after all the bullshit and rhetoric, there's hardly any more people that are actually going to be given health care, than had it before. As a poor person on the street, you're options are still no different than they were before Obamacare, and that's what people don't realize. ALL they did was pass a series of taxes. There were a couple of GOOD things in there, but the Democrat congress wasn't concerned about that this time around. They could have passed a single piece of legislation that protected against preexisting conditions, and it would have passed unanimously... but that wasn't the point when they passed this bill... it was about regulation, taxation, and control.


The Democrats simply believe that America's economy will "always" recover, regardless of what they do to it. You don't care if the United States remains the most economically powerful country in the world... but I do. It bothers me to think that we will "also" go the way of Egypt, Babylon, Rome, England, and all the other powerful nations of the world in times past. I had really hoped that IF there was going to be a one-world government, it would essentially be under the United States' form of rule... but it looks like that isn't going to happen anymore, and this was just one more nail in the coffin, if not "the" nail.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Source? Speaking of assumptions... Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 over 4 years had a net average revenue effect of -2.89%. Source: http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

We've covered this. That last time I looked at that data, the first 4 years did have a negative return, but the following years were positive. We were recovering from the Carter disaster.

Remember, they are STILL blaming "George Bush's policies" 4 years later. Wouldn't the same apply here, but because of differing circumstances?

quote This was offset partially by effective tax increases through other programs Reagan implemented, but the net sum was still about a 1% reduction in government revenue. Ever heard of the Laffer curve? "...estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve Not exactly the 26% that we are currently at.

Of course. That's why I brought it up. But there seems to be some disagreement on this, especially if you ask a Keynesian Economist versus an Austrian School Economist. We would need to know which theory to which the assorted economists you quoted subscribe.

I am glad you are familiar with the concept, but you (and the economists you quote) are drawing the wrong conclusions.

Tax rate at which revenue is maximized

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that for academic studies, the mid-range for the revenue maximizing rate is around 70%.[2] Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%.[10] A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%.[11] A 1981 paper published in the Journal of Political Economy presented a model integrating empirical data that indicated that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[12] A recent paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER presented a model that predicted that the US and most European economies are on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue).[9]

================================

edit, add: Wow, Maso. Did you bother to read past the stat graph you posted? The tax rates were again adjusted in 1986. Neither was a simple change in tax rate. Also from your article:

As can be seen, a number of these provisions are effectively tax hikes, offsetting the additional cuts in the tax rates. Those provisions include items 2, 7 through 10, 12, 13, and the second half of item 1 (repeal of the capital gains exclusion). That is likely the major reason why revenues did not fall further. In any case, this shows that the top marginal rate does not always tell the whole story about the level of individual income taxes.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: No, it's not. When did we become the world's police ?

reminds me of this movie...

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Am I advocating raising his taxes? Sounds like a typical Romney quote...

As far as I see you are. Where are you not?

You also seem to have this "I can't believe he has _____ items, which I don't have.... We should hate him!!" mentality which is what I believe has destroyed this country.

Brad

quote Originally posted by cliffw: It ain't the taking in of any amount of absolute dollars. It is the never ending increases in spending and the cry for more taxes that I find egregious. Gooberment has a spending problem. Actually, gooberment is a problem. We have an over redundancy in agencies. All vying for power and a larger budget. All with wasteful spending. Did you find a country with a higher tax rate ? There ain't one. Yeah, we got deductions. Our tax code is a joke in of itself.

I agree in principle, but your talking points are flawed. We do not have the highest tax rate of any nation. Even the graph YOU linked to shows that while we have a marginally higher corporate tax rate than most (the graph is out of date, since our current tax rate is 35%, not 39% as shown) but our personal income tax rate is far below many other developed nations. France, for one, is right at 50% - and they just passed a 75% marginal tax rate for the wealthy. Makes our 33% seem like a pittance.

i agree that our government wastes lots of money. I agree that they've overextended themselves in a lot of areas. I also agree that our tax code is ridiculous. But to claim we are taxed higher than anyone else is not correct.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yup. and playing "world police" is at the root of it. how many "intelligence" agencies? how many military branches? how many Police agencies? its a crazy expensive alphabet soup of acronyms. yes - there most certainly is a spending problem.

We spend three times as much on entitlements as we do defense.

"Mandatory" spending is more than we take in each year in revenue. That includes all the entitlements.
"Discretionary" spending is where all the stuff you complain about falls.

This is how pundits like to talk about the spending when they want to show why we need to cut military spending.


They don't show you this part...


Cut out every penny of Defense, Intelligence, and Police spending and we still run deficits every year due to entitlements.
Military spending is about 1/5th of our total spending.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-30-2012).]

quote fierobear: <snip>

Look at this data, taken from my link.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... -1.21 -2.60 -3.58 -4.15%

That's the % change in tax revenue for years 1-4, respectively. Do revenues appear to be rising or falling? Does it jump to positive in year 5?

Regarding the Laffer curve and maximum tax rates: From your text, one economist believes the revenue-maximum rate is approximately 33%, while the others believe its around 70%. Either way, the average tax rate as % of GDP (including federal and local taxes) is currently around 26%, so dropping rates will decrease revenue, even using the most extreme case.

I did read past the graph (although admittedly not the entire article). The text you quote, shown again below:

As can be seen, a number of these provisions are effectively tax hikes, offsetting the additional cuts in the tax rates. Those provisions include items 2, 7 through 10, 12, 13, and the second half of item 1 (repeal of the capital gains exclusion). That is likely the major reason why revenues did not fall further. In any case, this shows that the top marginal rate does not always tell the whole story about the level of individual income taxes.

This explains why total government revenue did not fall further despite the tax cuts, because other bills were enacted that increased revenue. Look at that table - it sums it up. The tax cut alone yielded over a 4% drop in revenue by year 4.

so, again - what is wrong with the Reagan Tax Rates?
are they no good?
the economy did OK with these, didnt it?
or did they have nothing to do with it?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Cut out every penny of Defense, Intelligence, and Police spending and we still run deficits every year due to entitlements. Military spending is about 1/5th of our total spending.

Military spending is less than 5% of our GDP, but its still a ridiculous amount of money. We spent $700 billion in 2012 - that's more than 4 times more than "2nd place", China. Every dollar spent on military is a dollar NOT spent on other issues, or a dollar that didn't need to be taxed to begin with.

Entitlements, sure they need to be cut, but military spending could use a good trim as well.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Military spending is less than 5% of our GDP, but its still a ridiculous amount of money. We spent $700 billion in 2012 - that's more than 4 times more than "2nd place", China. Every dollar spent on military is a dollar NOT spent on other issues, or a dollar that didn't need to be taxed to begin with. Entitlements, sure they need to be cut, but military spending could use a good trim as well.

I never suggested the military can't stand to be cut. But people like to point to it like it's the biggest expense we have and it isn't. Cutting out our military completely won't fix our debt problems. Sure, cuts to it can help, but it's wasted effort if other reforms aren't also part of the mix.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Every dollar spent on military is a dollar NOT spent on other issues, or a dollar that didn't need to be taxed to begin with.

Remember this. It's true for many, many things. For every dollar spent on military, we spent THREE on entitlements instead of other issues.
And when you're wondering why the economy stinks, remember, for every dollar we are taxed, is a dollar we are NOT spending in the economy.

Yes, you've definitely hit on the key point of the matter. Make sure you understand how wide that idea applies.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: This explains why total government revenue did not fall further despite the tax cuts, because other bills were enacted that increased revenue. Look at that table - it sums it up. The tax cut alone yielded over a 4% drop in revenue by year 4.

You missed the point. It wasn't a simple raising or lowering of the tax rate. It was very convoluted. But lowering the rate was *part* of the deal, and revenues eventually went up. Something that your article leaves out...there was also a recession from 1980-1982. That makes it tough for tax revenues to go up, regardless of rate.

The bottom line is, you can't use what you posted as iron clad proof that lowering rates is the sole reason for lower revenue.

The recession in 1980-1982 would make it even easier to show revenue growth in 1984, which did not happen. The trend showed the exact opposite. Revenues were declining faster every year since 1980.

My argument may not be "iron clad", but I have yet to see any evidence that it's incorrect. History has been unkind to your theory of raising revenue by lowering rates.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: The recession in 1980-1982 would make it even easier to show revenue growth in 1984, which did not happen. The trend showed the exact opposite. Revenues were declining faster every year since 1980.

Not necessarily. Like I said, there were many things going on all at once. You can't make a reasonable conclusion about tax rates unless you ONLY lowered the rate and nothing else. It would have been helpful if the economy wasn't all over the place.

quote My argument may not be "iron clad", but I have yet to see any evidence that it's incorrect. History has been unkind to your theory of raising revenue by lowering rates.

Dude, we've beaten this to death. If you think 70% tax rates are a good idea, then all I can say is "good f***ing luck with that".

Let me put this another way...would YOU want 70% of YOUR wages going to the government? Would YOU want more than 50% of YOUR wages being taken for income taxes? How long would you put up with that crap? How hard would you continue to work?

Look, just because you are not rich doesn't mean that you don't have the potential to get to that level some day. It is YOUR economic freedom and the opportunity to succeed and prosper that is at stake if income tax rates over 50% become the norm. I am just astonished that people like you can think the way you do. I mean, seriously, do you REALLY sit there thinking "I'm not rich, it isn't my money, so f*** them, tax the crap out of them?" Really, dude?

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-30-2012).]

Stop jumping to conclusions. I never said I favor a 70% tax rate. I simply dispute the notion that lowering tax rates results in increased revenues. Of course nobody wants 70% of their wages going to the government. Nor do I.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Look, just because you are not rich

You have no idea what my financial status is, or how much I pay in taxes. Just because I disagree with your incomplete / flawed logic does not mean I am a socialist that is government dependent.

[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 11-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: You have no idea what my financial status is, or how much I pay in taxes.

There is an assumption on this forum that if you didn't support Romney and the Republicans, you must be poor and getting money from the government. Strange, because life is not black and white, but politics on this forum seems to be.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Remember this. It's true for many, many things. For every dollar spent on military, we spent THREE on entitlements instead of other issues. And when you're wondering why the economy stinks, remember, for every dollar we are taxed, is a dollar we are NOT spending in the economy. Yes, you've definitely hit on the key point of the matter. Make sure you understand how wide that idea applies.

untrue

I agree welfare needs a fixin. but, I suppose I need to know what you are calling "entitlements" before we go much further.
because there are military entitlements as well, and there are items which are paid benefits, which liars like to call entitlements, which make it possible to make misleading statements as you did with your 1:3 ratio above.

but - I do agree that there is alot of room to cut into the wic/welfare. I see the abuse 1st hand daily. but, that is small potatoes to the large scale abuse in the military spending.
military spending isnt just the hardware & base serviceman pay.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: There is an assumption on this forum that if you didn't support Romney and the Republicans, you must be poor and getting money from the government. Strange, because life is not black and white, but politics on this forum seems to be.

No, there is an assumption that if you support socialist politicians and socialist policies that you MIGHT be a socialist. Maybe you just don't know it.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: untrue I agree welfare needs a fixin. but, I suppose I need to know what you are calling "entitlements" before we go much further. because there are military entitlements as well, and there are items which are paid benefits, which liars like to call entitlements, which make it possible to make misleading statements as you did with your 1:3 ratio above. but - I do agree that there is alot of room to cut into the wic/welfare. I see the abuse 1st hand daily. but, that is small potatoes to the large scale abuse in the military spending. military spending isnt just the hardware & base serviceman pay.

Calling it untrue doesn't change the math.

The data is out there if you're honest enough to look at it. "Entitlements" refers to mandatory spending such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Welfare, etc. All Defense spending, including the benefits paid as part of the compensation packages, fall under discretionary spending.

Mandatory spending is about 58% of total spending. Military spending is 57% of Discretionary spending. Since Discretionary spending is about 36% of total spending, that means Defense spending is roughly 20% of our annual spending.

58% goes to entitlements
20% goes to defense.

I don't know where you went to school, but 58 is pretty close to three times as much as 20. (2.9 times, actually)
It's only misleading to you because you don't want to believe it.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Calling it untrue doesn't change the math. The data is out there if you're honest enough to look at it. "Entitlements" refers to mandatory spending such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Welfare, etc. All Defense spending, including the benefits paid as part of the compensation packages, fall under discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is about 58% of total spending. Military spending is 57% of Discretionary spending. Since Discretionary spending is about 36% of total spending, that means Defense spending is roughly 20% of our annual spending. 58% goes to entitlements 20% goes to defense. I don't know where you went to school, but 58 is pretty close to three times as much as 20. (2.9 times, actually) It's only misleading to you because you don't want to believe it.

yes, but calling SS an entitlement does change the math.
SS is paid for, and seperate. remove it, and try your BS math again.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 11-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes, but calling SS an entitlement does change the math. SS is paid for, and seperate. remove it, and try your BS math again.

No, SS is supposed to be paid for, but the pols keep stealing the money.

For FY 2013, the U.S. budgets a little over 20% of total spending on security ($851 billion). This is more than it spends on Social Security ($820 billion), more than it spends on Medicare ($523 billion).

In FY 2013, the budget deficit is estimated to be $901 billion

The OMB has budgeted more than half ($851 billion) on security spending, which pays for the Defense department, as well as defense-related functions of all other federal agencies. That leaves just $410 billion to pay for all other domestic programs, like Housing, Education and the Judicial system.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: No, SS is supposed to be paid for, but the pols keep stealing the money.

yes they do.
because SS is NOT part of the problem.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes they do. because SS is NOT part of the problem.

Social Security costs are currently 100% covered by Social Security payroll taxes, and interest on past payroll taxes that have been invested. Until 2010, there was more coming into the Social Security Trust Fund than being paid out. Thanks to interest on investments, the Trust Fund is still running a surplus. However, the Board of the Fund estimates that the surplus will be depleted by 2036. Social Security revenue, from payroll taxes and interest earned, will cover only 77% of the benefits promised to retirees.

The Federal government plans to take in $2.902 trillion for FY2013. Most of the taxes are paid by you, either through income or payroll taxes:
- Income taxes contribute 46.8%.
- Social Security, Medicare and other payroll taxes are 33%.
- Corporate taxes are only 12%.
- Excise taxes, custom duties and other revenue make up the remaining 8.2%.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Social Security costs are currently 100% covered by Social Security payroll taxes, and interest on past payroll taxes that have been invested. Until 2010, there was more coming into the Social Security Trust Fund than being paid out. Thanks to interest on investments, the Trust Fund is still running a surplus. However, the Board of the Fund estimates that the surplus will be depleted by 2036. Social Security revenue, from payroll taxes and interest earned, will cover only 77% of the benefits promised to retirees. The Federal government plans to take in $2.902 trillion for FY2013. Most of the taxes are paid by you, either through income or payroll taxes: - Income taxes contribute 46.8%. - Social Security, Medicare and other payroll taxes are 33%. - Corporate taxes are only 12%. - Excise taxes, custom duties and other revenue make up the remaining 8.2%.

Really, just where do you think that money was invested?

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Really, just where do you think that money was invested?

Non-marketable U.S. Government bonds,

quote Originally posted by newf: For FY 2013, the U.S. budgets a little over 20% of total spending on security ($851 billion). This is more than it spends on Social Security ($820 billion), more than it spends on Medicare ($523 billion).

The US budgets 851 billion on social security ?

quote Originally posted by newf: Social Security costs are currently 100% covered by Social Security payroll taxes, and interest on past payroll taxes that have been invested.

Why do we have to budget for something already paid for, ? Why should it have to budget for social security ? Where does the money you say the gooberment spends on social security come from ?

quote Originally posted by newf: ... interest on past payroll taxes that have been invested.

Interest ? Rolling on the floor laughing my azz off. Check that. I am throwing up. Invested where ? In what ?
Interest ? We are paying interest on all the money we owe, .

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 11-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Non-marketable U.S. Government bonds,

You do see the problem here, don't you?

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Really, just where do you think that money was invested?

quote Originally posted by newf: Non-marketable U.S. Government bonds,

US gooberment bonds are non-marketable in my home. Only a fool would invest in the US gooberment.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: You do see the problem here, don't you?

That it's been mismanaged for years to pay for other things?

But of course I was just showing facts the rest is opinion IMO.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by newf: That it's been mismanaged for years to pay for other things? But of course I was just showing facts the rest is opinion IMO.

You showed nothing, but your lack of understanding.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: You showed nothing, but your lack of understanding.

And you your character or lack there of.

I posted facts, can't help the spin.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Social Security costs are currently 100% covered by Social Security payroll taxes, and interest on past payroll taxes that have been invested. Until 2010, there was more coming into the Social Security Trust Fund than being paid out. Thanks to interest on investments, the Trust Fund is still running a surplus. However, the Board of the Fund estimates that the surplus will be depleted by 2036. Social Security revenue, from payroll taxes and interest earned, will cover only 77% of the benefits promised to retirees. The Federal government plans to take in $2.902 trillion for FY2013. Most of the taxes are paid by you, either through income or payroll taxes: - Income taxes contribute 46.8%. - Social Security, Medicare and other payroll taxes are 33%. - Corporate taxes are only 12%. - Excise taxes, custom duties and other revenue make up the remaining 8.2%.

The only correction I'd make is Social Security isn't running a surplus, it's running a deficit. They still have funds, yes, but since they're paying out more than they take in each year, that's an annual deficit.

He closed down the least profitable division to avoid paying the added expense of Obamacare. His choice was close it completely, or put all employees across the board on part time status. He spent the proceedes for himself. If he saved it or reinvested any of it, taxes would take 1/2 of it. He only ends up paying sales tax on all he bought...and hes got tangible personal property out of it. Dont think Obamacare and higher taxes will really affect anyone here....how about in Britain ? What did they do.....they sold out and left.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...id-50p-tax-rate.html

quote Originally posted by newf: And you your character or lack there of. I posted facts, can't help the spin.

Now that was really dickish!. How by any stretch or measure is what I posted showing a lack of character?. I understand your pissed, you look very uninformed.

It looks like Obama is indirectly admitting that raising taxes on the rich will be a drag on the economy, so MORE stimulus would be needed.

Why Obama is pushing for stimulus in 'fiscal cliff' deal

Or maybe he just owes more payback to unions?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Looks like the crap never ends or changes

Clearly the Chicago Tribune was racist in 1934. And I didn't even know FDR was black.
The upside is we survived even the Great Depression and the Keynesian policies they tried to "fix" the economy with.
The downside is, it took a World War to do it.

We live in interesting times.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 12-01-2012).]