Why Only 39.6%

myp · Jan 7, 2013

Not raising taxes during a recovery is not part of "trickle down" economics. You seem to think that there are 2 ways of thought in economics - "trickle down" (which isn't really even a way of thought but a derogatory term used by those who politicize non-political issues) and whatever you believe. Simply not true.

For one, Keynesians generally won't favor a fiscal shock during recovery either. Actually, they are probably MORE likely to not want to raise taxes/cut spending right now.

But that aside, how do you explain Greece?

You need to understand that economics is not politics. It is a much more rigorous approach to looking at these issues. You can't simply state your beliefs and consider it to mean anything to anyone. Show me the studies that support your little theory and show me the data that support those studies and then we might be able to have a decent discussion on economics. Until then, you are just making some weird and often extreme political statements.

Protectionist · Jan 7, 2013

myp said:
Not raising taxes during a recovery is not part of "trickle down" economics. You seem to think that there are 2 ways of thought in economics - "trickle down" (which isn't really even a way of thought but a derogatory term used by those who politicize non-political issues) and whatever you believe. Simply not true.

For one, Keynesians generally won't favor a fiscal shock during recovery either. Actually, they are probably MORE likely to not want to raise taxes/cut spending right now.

But that aside, how do you explain Greece?

You need to understand that economics is not politics. It is a much more rigorous approach to looking at these issues. You can't simply state your beliefs and consider it to mean anything to anyone. Show me the studies that support your little theory and show me the data that support those studies and then we might be able to have a decent discussion on economics. Until then, you are just making some weird and often extreme political statements.

How about if YOU SHOW ME how your idea that raising taxes on the rich ANYTIME is a bad thing ? (and specifically why)

As for the studies, I haven't really looked into any on this but I do know that when taxes on the rich were at 75-80%, that's when we had our best job growth and GDP growth. And during the Reagan-Bush tax cuts of 28-31% those growths were lousy. Causal relationship ? Maybe. But you can't say there's one for good growth when taxes were low though.

chris7375 · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
How about if YOU SHOW ME how your idea that raising taxes on the rich ANYTIME is a bad thing ? (and specifically why)

As for the studies, I haven't really looked into any on this but I do know that when taxes on the rich were at 75-80%, that's when we had our best job growth and GDP growth. And during the Reagan-Bush tax cuts of 28-31% those growths were lousy. Causal relationship ? Maybe. But you can't say there's one for good growth when taxes were low though.

Though I am not a fan of Reagan he had a better economic growth then Obama did so I beg to differ. Reagan economic recover had better results though it was cause by something less abrasive so that is why his numbers are better then Obama's. Though each Economic Crisis is different. Reagan by cutting the income tax promoted growth and at a faster rate. We are not in that same boat as we were then so in Obama's defense he can't do the same things to stimulate growth. So your info is a little off.

The Reagan recovery had one of the fastest rates of growth we ever saw," said Barry Bosworth, an economist at the Brookings Institution. "If anything it was too strong. It was spectacular."
Just take a look at the numbers:
The economy grew at 4.5% in 1983, with a few quarters of growth north of 8%. In 2011, meanwhile, the economy grew just 1.7%.
In just one month -- September 1983 -- the economy added more than a million jobs. For the full year, the economy added almost 3.5 million jobs, a trend that continued into 1984, an election year in which Reagan captured 49 states in a landslide victory.
Obama can claim job growth of 1.8 million in 2011. A welcome comeback, but still tepid by comparison.
Looking ahead to 2012, Obama could replicate the 243,000 jobs created in January over each of the next 11 months and still not approach Reagan's total for 1984 of 3.9 million.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/obama_reagan_recovery/index.htm

Protectionist · Jan 8, 2013

chris7375 said:
Though I am not a fan of Reagan he had a better economic growth then Obama did so I beg to differ. Reagan economic recover had better results though it was cause by something less abrasive so that is why his numbers are better then Obama's. Though each Economic Crisis is different. Reagan by cutting the income tax promoted growth and at a faster rate. We are not in that same boat as we were then so in Obama's defense he can't do the same things to stimulate growth. So your info is a little off.

Right after I informed you that the Reagan-Bush 28-31% (1988-19991) produced some of the WORST GDP and job growth in the past 60 years, you come out and say that Reagan "by cutting the income tax promoted growth and at a faster rate."

FALSE! Have you listened to one word I've said ? You think I don't know what I'm talking about ? And I haven't been talking about Obama (YOU brought that up)

Gottago · Jan 8, 2013

myp said:
Yes, but a progressive consumption tax- more like a VAT.

Only if it gets a cap would I even consider it.

Open ended taxes are the governmental glory land......

Flat income tax. This progressive tax does more damage than anything I can think of.

chris7375 · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
Right after I informed you that the Reagan-Bush 28-31% (1988-19991) produced some of the WORST GDP and job growth in the past 60 years, you come out and say that Reagan "by cutting the income tax promoted growth and at a faster rate."

FALSE! Have you listened to one word I've said ? You think I don't know what I'm talking about ? And I haven't been talking about Obama (YOU brought that up)

Have you got any other information then a liberal think tank?

My source CNN a Liberal new agency the last time I looked was my source.

Though apparently you don't like to listen to what anybody else has to say. CNN must be wrong. Then again maybe you did not listen to me and what I said. I will go with the latter.

Reagan had a higher economic growth then Obama for one reason only his economic trouble was far different then Obama's. Obama's is far more complex then Reagan's. Reagan had a steep unemployment spike then a Steep fall over all though his economic growth was better. The only reason his growth was better was because his crisis was far simpler then the one Obama is faced with.

That would be the only reason Obama's number are not as good because his economic crisis is far more complexed.

So Obama's numbers are not as well as you think though I am far from blaming him another source for you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577609863412900388.html

Protectionist · Jan 8, 2013

chris7375 said:
Have you got any other information then a liberal think tank?

My source CNN a Liberal new agency the last time I looked was my source.

Though apparently you don't like to listen to what anybody else has to say. CNN must be wrong. Then again maybe you did not listen to me and what I said. I will go with the latter.

Reagan had a higher economic growth then Obama for one reason only his economic trouble was far different then Obama's. Obama's is far more complex then Reagan's. Reagan had a steep unemployment spike then a Steep fall over all though his economic growth was better. The only reason his growth was better was because his crisis was far simpler then the one Obama is faced with.

That would be the only reason Obama's number are not as good because his economic crisis is far more complexed.

So Obama's numbers are not as well as you think though I am far from blaming him another source for you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577609863412900388.html

1. What I have said has nothing to do with Obama.

2. Yeah, I have other sources than a liberal think tank. Why don't you try reading the sources shown at the bottom of the graphs ?

They are:

1. US Bureau of Labor Statistics & Tax Policy Center

2. US Bureau of Economic Analysis & Tax Policy Center

So are you saying you don't believe these stats ? LOL.

Protectionist · Jan 8, 2013

Gottago said:
Only if it gets a cap would I even consider it.

Open ended taxes are the governmental glory land......

Flat income tax. This progressive tax does more damage than anything I can think of.

Reason what a flat tax can't work is if it's too low, then not enough revenue is generated, and the American people lose services. If it's too high, the lower income people can't pay it. So what's your problem with a progressive tax system ? Especially since it's the ONLY way taxes can be.

Gottago · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
Reason what a flat tax can't work is if it's too low, then not enough revenue is generated, and the American people lose services. If it's too high, the lower income people can't pay it. So what's your problem with a progressive tax system ? Especially since it's the ONLY way taxes can be.

Excluding the first $25000 from taxes pretty much covers a large percentage of the low income group from paying.

a Flat 20% (for example) of all income, reguardless of source (not including inheritance) would generate enough income to run the realistic programs, not the bleeding heart programs.

Apparently you are quite attached to your 'programs'. They are overgrown and bloated, inefficient and mismanaged. All entitlement programs need a complete overhaul, IMO.

Progressive is NOT the only way taxes can be. Your limiting your view by saying that.

myp · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
How about if YOU SHOW ME how your idea that raising taxes on the rich ANYTIME is a bad thing ? (and specifically why)

As for the studies, I haven't really looked into any on this but I do know that when taxes on the rich were at 75-80%, that's when we had our best job growth and GDP growth. And during the Reagan-Bush tax cuts of 28-31% those growths were lousy. Causal relationship ? Maybe. But you can't say there's one for good growth when taxes were low though.

You are taking random correlations, far from causal conclusions, unless you have more data and/or studies to back it up.

And idea of why raising taxes right now is bad is simple- it reduces GDP. Given the importance of expectations during a recovery, that is the last thing you want.

myp · Jan 8, 2013

Gottago said:
Only if it gets a cap would I even consider it.

Open ended taxes are the governmental glory land......

Flat income tax. This progressive tax does more damage than anything I can think of.

Why would you want to tax the poor harder than the rich? (flat tax)

Also, if we are talking about optimal solutions why do you want to tax a relatively productive thing like income?

Protectionist · Jan 8, 2013

Gottago said:
Excluding the first $25000 from taxes pretty much covers a large percentage of the low income group from paying.

a Flat 20% (for example) of all income, reguardless of source (not including inheritance) would generate enough income to run the realistic programs, not the bleeding heart programs.

Apparently you are quite attached to your 'programs'. They are overgrown and bloated, inefficient and mismanaged. All entitlement programs need a complete overhaul, IMO.

Progressive is NOT the only way taxes can be. Your limiting your view by saying that.

So you advocate that multimillionaires pay only 20% tax. LOL. What are you some kind of GREED FREAK worse than Ronald Reagan, with his 28% movie star tax. Sheeeeeshh !! If thinking like this ever gets accepted, we'll never get out of debt, we won't have a military, we'll be invaded, every infrastructure disaster will go unfixed, victims of natural disasters will go unhelped, lots of people will starve, and amid al this chaos and catastrophe, you'll be comfortable. Is that what you're thinking ?

The biggest "entitlement" in America is rich people thinking they are entitled to stuff their faces with as much wealth as they can, with no responsibility to the society they live in.

myp · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
So you advocate that multimillionaires pay only 20% tax. LOL. what are you some kind of GREED FREAK worse that Ronald Reagan with his 28% movie star tax. Sheeeeeshh !! If thinking like this ever gets accepted we'll never get out of debt, we won't have a military, we'll be invaded, every infrastructure disaster will go unfixed, victims of natural disasters will go unhelped, lots of people will starve, and amid al this chaos and catastrophe, you'll be comfortable. Is that what you're thinking ?

The biggest "entitlement" in America is rich people thinking they are entitled to stuff their faces with as much wealth as they can, with no responsibility to the society they live in.

Just because he thinks there should be a 20% tax does not make him greedy. Again, greed is subjective and there are varying viewpoints on this.

Protectionist · Jan 8, 2013

myp said:
Just because he thinks there should be a 20% tax does not make him greedy. Again, greed is subjective and there are varying viewpoints on this.

That is one way of looking at it. Another is that the 20% he is advocating is highly ABNORMAL, and would be the lowest income tax rate (top bracket) in the past 97 years, going back to when there was a lot less need for taxes than now.

So what would one think about an advocacy of such a rare, peculiar tax rate ? That maybe 20 is his lucky number ? His motivation sticks out like a sore thumb.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

myp · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
That is one way of looking at it. Another is that the 20% he is advocating is highly ABNORMAL, and would be the lowest income tax rate (top bracket) in the past 97 years, going back to when there was a lot less need for taxes than now.

So what would one think about an advocacy of such a rare, peculiar tax rate ? That maybe 20 is his lucky number ? His motivation sticks out like a sore thumb.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

To be honest, while 20% doesn't seem like the best choice to me, 90 whatever percent you want doesn't either...

Gottago · Jan 9, 2013

Protectionist said:
So you advocate that multimillionaires pay only 20% tax. LOL. What are you some kind of GREED FREAK worse than Ronald Reagan, with his 28% movie star tax. Sheeeeeshh !! If thinking like this ever gets accepted, we'll never get out of debt, we won't have a military, we'll be invaded, every infrastructure disaster will go unfixed, victims of natural disasters will go unhelped, lots of people will starve, and amid al this chaos and catastrophe, you'll be comfortable. Is that what you're thinking ?

The biggest "entitlement" in America is rich people thinking they are entitled to stuff their faces with as much wealth as they can, with no responsibility to the society they live in.

Flat tax allows no exclusions, other than the first dollars.... every dime of income gets taxed. Exactly how is that 'greedy'?

Lol, losing rational, logical thinking with 'the sky is falling' theories isn't going to help. Would you care to back up your statements with facts, or is emotion all there is behind it? Either one is good, I just like to know where someone is coming from.

Okay, apparently it was missed the first time. No one said the 'rich' shouldn't pay taxes. They are paying for programs they are highly unlikely to use, so I don't know why you feel they are an 'entitlement'.

They pay for their 'usage' of infrastructure, military, law enforcement, etc. via fed/state income taxes, real estate taxes and sales taxes. Unlike other 'entitlement' groups who are paying in (if at all) minimal amounts that do not cover what what they take out. How is that equitable?

Please answer a question, since your OP indicates it.... are you drawing from a program that is funded by taxpayer money? Have they stated that your program is being reduced/ended because of the economic situation? Why is that the fault of the 'rich'?

chris7375 · Jan 9, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. What I have said has nothing to do with Obama.

2. Yeah, I have other sources than a liberal think tank. Why don't you try reading the sources shown at the bottom of the graphs ?

They are:

1. US Bureau of Labor Statistics & Tax Policy Center

2. US Bureau of Economic Analysis & Tax Policy Center

So are you saying you don't believe these stats ? LOL.

Not when the labor board is run by the man trying to look good no I don't. You are telling me Obama is not going to make those statistics make him look favorable? Please if you think that you need to pull the wool away from your eyes. Bush 2 did the same thing when he was in office so for me to take those current statistics and not think they were made to give Obama the best light sorry you are wrong. Though many credible outside sources say differently Such as CNN, WSJ here is another one.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oba...nths-all-presidents-washington-through-reagan

This article says Obama added more to the nation debt then Reagan ever did. This is also supported by the CBO.

chris7375 · Jan 9, 2013

Protectionist said:
That is one way of looking at it. Another is that the 20% he is advocating is highly ABNORMAL, and would be the lowest income tax rate (top bracket) in the past 97 years, going back to when there was a lot less need for taxes than now.

So what would one think about an advocacy of such a rare, peculiar tax rate ? That maybe 20 is his lucky number ? His motivation sticks out like a sore thumb.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Yet you leave out most of those taxes come back to the poor when taxes are filed. So money leaves the system when tax returns are handed in at the end of the year. Even if you did a flat tax of 28%. You did away with the current tax filing system. Meaning no one would have to file taxes i.e. no one would owe taxes or get money back. That money now stays in the system which accounts for part of the gap that is experienced. It saves us billions of dollars a year in tax filing loopholes that are never corrected.

Taxing the rich does not create job growth it creates a bigger government which makes no sense when Government employees make more then most common citizens.

Protectionist · Jan 9, 2013

myp said:
To be honest, while 20% doesn't seem like the best choice to me, 90 whatever percent you want doesn't either...

Why not ?????

Protectionist · Jan 9, 2013

Gottago said:
Flat tax allows no exclusions, other than the first dollars.... every dime of income gets taxed. Exactly how is that 'greedy'?

Lol, losing rational, logical thinking with 'the sky is falling' theories isn't going to help. Would you care to back up your statements with facts, or is emotion all there is behind it? Either one is good, I just like to know where someone is coming from.

Okay, apparently it was missed the first time. No one said the 'rich' shouldn't pay taxes. They are paying for programs they are highly unlikely to use, so I don't know why you feel they are an 'entitlement'.

They pay for their 'usage' of infrastructure, military, law enforcement, etc. via fed/state income taxes, real estate taxes and sales taxes. Unlike other 'entitlement' groups who are paying in (if at all) minimal amounts that do not cover what what they take out. How is that equitable?

Please answer a question, since your OP indicates it.... are you drawing from a program that is funded by taxpayer money? Have they stated that your program is being reduced/ended because of the economic situation? Why is that the fault of the 'rich'?

1. What is greedy is the 20% tax that you suggested, leaving multimillionaires pocketing 80% of their enormous growth. So you, for example, would support Johnny Depp receiving $80 Million of his $100 Million gross. That's Greed. If I had a gross of $100 Million, I'd give $99 Million of it to worthwhile charities, and I'd still feel guilty about keeping the $ 1 Million remaining.

2. Which statements are you wanting to have facts backing them ?

3. The rich are NOT "highly unlikely to use" the programs I mentioned, they are using them every day. Just because you don't suffer an earthquake or a hurricane or a drought, flood, or tornado, etc. doesn't mean you're not using the tax $$ allocated to that. You're using those $$ just by the fact that they're there for you if/whenever you DO need them. THAT is your use. Same thing with govt healthcare. The military. Take the troops out of Afghanistan and how long before the Pakistani govt falls, Muslim radicals grab their nukes and pop you in the head with them ? Want to venture a guess ?
Seems like something not to play guessing games with.

4. The entitlement of the rich is the process of which they are entitled to receive the vast amounts of money/wealth that they do.

5. Other entitlement groups do NOT pay minimal amounts that do not cover what they take out. I'll use myself as an example. I'm 66 years old.
I receive Social Security, Medicare, and because of my low income, I get food stamps, Medicaid, and Assurance Wireless. And for all five of these I pay NOTHING in >> RIGHT NOW that is. BUT, I've BEEN PAYING into these things FOR 50 YEARS, while I was working, and didn't receive a dime back in all that time. That's the American system. The young pay for the old, and when those young get old, the people younger than them pay for them, and so on. It's not 100% perfect, but we like it. And the younger people paying in now (and whining) will be damn glad to have this when they get older. And please don't give me that BS that SS won't be there. If there's anything contributing to that, it's the ABNORMALLY low taxes on the rich we've had for the last 30 years.

6. Any programs that are being cut, are partially the fault of the rich, who endlessly lobby to keep their taxes low. For one reason >> GREED.

Why Only 39.6%

Similar threads