Why Only 39.6%

Protectionist · Jan 9, 2013

chris7375 said:
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.

1. Again. I'm not talking about Obama.

2. Yes I am telling you that Obama is not going to make those statistics make him look favorable. You know how I know ? Because those statistics come from US bureaus of 11 presidents going back to Eisenhower in the 50's. I remember seeing the same graphs, from the same US bureaus in the 1970s when I taught economics in college, where they listed the job & GDP growths (then listed as GNP-same thing). Sorry to deflate your Obama conspiracy theory.

3. I also was talking about job & GDP growth, not the debt. You like to change the subject a lot don't you ?

Protectionist · Jan 9, 2013

chris7375 said:
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.

1. You just can't do a flat tax because if it's too low you shortchange society of the services it needs. If it's too high, low income people would be paying too much. There has to be a class view of income taxation, and structured that way.

2. Of course taxing the rich creates job growth. There are thousands of government jobs not currently in existence not because they're not needed (they certainly are) but only because there's not enough revenue to support them). So, create the additional revenue, hire the additional workers and when they go to the stores, this boosts the economy (PERCOLATE UP ECONOMICS), ANd if the govt workers are immigration workers (ICE agents, CBP officers, build the fence, create immigration courts/jails) this will help the economy immensely. (don't tell you don't know how). As for what govt employees are paid, that can always be adjusted (govt of the people)

myp · Jan 9, 2013

Protectionist said:
Why not ?????

For one, at higher income levels there is often a greater choice between income and things considered as capital gains. Essentially a form of the Laffer effect.

Also, I don't think income is a good thing to tax to begin with.

chris7375 · Jan 9, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. Again. I'm not talking about Obama.

2. Yes I am telling you that Obama is not going to make those statistics make him look favorable. You know how I know ? Because those statistics come from US bureaus of 11 presidents going back to Eisenhower in the 50's. I remember seeing the same graphs, from the same US bureaus in the 1970s when I taught economics in college, where they listed the job & GDP growths (then listed as GNP-same thing). Sorry to deflate your Obama conspiracy theory.

3. I also was talking about job & GDP growth, not the debt. You like to change the subject a lot don't you ?

First off both articles I gave you had much to do with Job growth as well as GDP. You have not deflated anything really again Reagan is shown to have a steeper Unemployment climb though his dropped faster then Obama has.

I was not changing the subject pointing out fact because as an Economics professor you must realize that the National Debt does come into play with all aspects of the economy.

chris7375 · Jan 9, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. You just can't do a flat tax because if it's too low you shortchange society of the services it needs. If it's too high, low income people would be paying too much. There has to be a class view of income taxation, and structured that way.

2. Of course taxing the rich creates job growth. There are thousands of government jobs not currently in existence not because they're not needed (they certainly are) but only because there's not enough revenue to support them). So, create the additional revenue, hire the additional workers and when they go to the stores, this boosts the economy (PERCOLATE UP ECONOMICS), ANd if the govt workers are immigration workers (ICE agents, CBP officers, build the fence, create immigration courts/jails) this will help the economy immensely. (don't tell you don't know how). As for what govt employees are paid, that can always be adjusted (govt of the people)

I will agree with you on the fact that the percentage of a flat tax needs to be right.

I do disagree with taxing the rich to an unfair extent. I also disagree that it does not affect private jobs sorry. Creating more government jobs is not the answer. I don't disagree with more ICE agents nor any of the proposals you suggest though I believe it should be cut elsewhere. As far as the government adjusting the salary that won't happen because most of the Government is union and they are not going to cut their salaries. 52% of all Government jobs are union and the union growth in government is growing. So I don't see any salaries being cut.

Protectionist · Jan 10, 2013

myp said:
For one, at higher income levels there is often a greater choice between income and things considered as capital gains. Essentially a form of the Laffer effect.

Also, I don't think income is a good thing to tax to begin with.

You're not making yourself clear. I don't know what you're talking about. Please clarify. And why don't you think income is a good thing to tax ?

Protectionist · Jan 10, 2013

chris7375 said:
First off both articles I gave you had much to do with Job growth as well as GDP. You have not deflated anything really again Reagan is shown to have a steeper Unemployment climb though his dropped faster then Obama has.

I was not changing the subject pointing out fact because as an Economics professor you must realize that the National Debt does come into play with all aspects of the economy.

You changed the subject by talking about Obama. Fact remains, the 1988-91 Reagan-Bush years were a disaster for both weak job growth & weak GDP growth. Best years were when taxes were 75-80%, with the 91-92% Eisenhower years a close second.

Protectionist · Jan 10, 2013

chris7375 said:
I will agree with you on the fact that the percentage of a flat tax needs to be right.

I do disagree with taxing the rich to an unfair extent. I also disagree that it does not affect private jobs sorry. Creating more government jobs is not the answer. I don't disagree with more ICE agents nor any of the proposals you suggest though I believe it should be cut elsewhere. As far as the government adjusting the salary that won't happen because most of the Government is union and they are not going to cut their salaries. 52% of all Government jobs are union and the union growth in government is growing. So I don't see any salaries being cut.

1. You don't agree with me , because I do not accept the idea of a flat tax AT ALL, no matter what the % is.

2. No one can deny that by creating govt jobs, this will boost (PERCOLATE UP) the economy. The new workers are certainly going to go to the stores (AKA the economy) and buy things. And stopping immigration (both legal and illegal) will help immensely.

myp · Jan 10, 2013

Protectionist said:
You're not making yourself clear. I don't know what you're talking about. Please clarify. And why don't you think income is a good thing to tax ?

People at higher income levels often are business owners, investors; people who use their capital to invest. A lot of those activities mean the money made is taxed not as income, but as capital gains. In other words, they won't pay whatever the rate is you set on the income brackets for such money made- they will pay the capital gains tax rate. People at those high rates who currently pay tax as income will be more easily (than people in lower brackets) to move their earnings into a way that classifies as capital gains and hence would get taxed at that lower rate. This essentially acts as the Laffer effect in the traditional income market.

As for why I don't think income is a good thing to tax- a few reasons. One is the above. The other is that even income is a productive thing- it is good that incomes (like capital gains) goes up as a nation. Why would we want to take something that is productive- it lessens the incentive. Instead, we should tax things that are not as productive (relatively) over the long run- to me this is a combination of consumption and things with negative externalities (Pigouvian taxes).

Protectionist · Jan 10, 2013

myp said:
People at higher income levels often are business owners, investors; people who use their capital to invest. A lot of those activities mean the money made is taxed not as income, but as capital gains. In other words, they won't pay whatever the rate is you set on the income brackets for such money made- they will pay the capital gains tax rate. People at those high rates who currently pay tax as income will be more easily (than people in lower brackets) to move their earnings into a way that classifies as capital gains and hence would get taxed at that lower rate. This essentially acts as the Laffer effect in the traditional income market.

As for why I don't think income is a good thing to tax- a few reasons. One is the above. The other is that even income is a productive thing- it is good that incomes (like capital gains) goes up as a nation. Why would we want to take something that is productive- it lessens the incentive. Instead, we should tax things that are not as productive (relatively) over the long run- to me this is a combination of consumption and things with negative externalities (Pigouvian taxes).

I'm not talking about business owners or any tax upon business. Together with with raising the individual tax, certainly goes all loophole closure including the one you refer to and any new ones as they arise. This is he job of "our" Congressmen. Either they do it, or they get fired.

What you are losing sight of is that by taxing the super rich, we are transferring $$ from the coffers of the very rich (who don't purchase goods as much as poorer people do, and when they do, they do it overseas - mostly Europe and the Caribbean) to poorer people. The poorer people are dynamos enriching the economy, buying all the things the rich already have (you name it), and they do it all in their own local communities. In fact. many poor and middle class people have never been outside the US.

Why Only 39.6%

Similar threads