ieatcrayonz Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 How about we get back to 18% of GDP first? Only taking in around 16%. What is 16%? Is that Federal income tax? All Federal tax/ All fed/state/local tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 What is 16%? Is that Federal income tax? All Federal tax/ All fed/state/local tax? Yes, Federal Tax Receipts as a % of GDP. Actually at 16.4% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 All economics degrees are B.S. Read the first couple of entry's on his blog link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 Read the first couple of entry's on his blog link. That bad eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 That bad eh? Like teacher, like student? Must be a first on these pages. If you're econ grad, then you also recognized that Bartlett was cherry picking data, yet still called it thoughtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 Like teacher, like student? Must be a first on these pages. If you're econ grad, then you also recognized that Bartlett was cherry picking data, yet still called it thoughtful. He may have a little. But, I still think he drives home his point though. The view that cutting taxes will also raise revenues short term or long term just isn't true. Some politicians, commentators, and even economists believe that cutting taxes is basically a solution to everything. I don't even think taxes should be raised yet. Although, I wouldn't object to raising the tax on wealthy. (GASP!) It wouldn't affect them too much and it does raise revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Read the first couple of entry's on his blog link. I've never understood the point of blogs from regular people about themselves. If you have some specialized knowledge in an area, and want to post your thoughts regarding the happenings in that area, that could be worth reading. But just thoughts about your own life or life in general? Who gives a ****? Isn't this why people keep personal journals/diaries? My wife's sister has a blog. I couldn't imagine a bigger fat-assed idiot writing more pathetic drivel about a more worthless subject. Ok, rant over. Where were we? Oh yeah, someone with a degree but no real world knowledge telling the rest of us how things should be run. This should be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) I've never understood the point of blogs from regular people about themselves. If you have some specialized knowledge in an area, and want to post your thoughts regarding the happenings in that area, that could be worth reading. But just thoughts about your own life or life in general? Who gives a ****? Isn't this why people keep personal journals/diaries? My wife's sister has a blog. I couldn't imagine a bigger fat-assed idiot writing more pathetic drivel about a more worthless subject. Ok, rant over. Where were we? Oh yeah, someone with a degree but no real world knowledge telling the rest of us how things should be run. This should be good. So standard. I write about a lot of different things - life, economics, politics, sports, etc. You're so mad though...why?? And I'm not telling anyone how things should be run. I am giving an opinion. You sound old and bitter. Edited March 19, 2012 by fjl2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yes, Federal Tax Receipts as a % of GDP. Actually at 16.4% Income tax or income + social + other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 How about we get back to 18% of GDP first? Only taking in around 16%. You'll forgive me for not giving a crap about a sample size that small. The current situation wouldn't be more than a blip on the radar if the government was able to exist on an average of 18% of the GDP of the greatest economic superpower in written history. No percentage of taxpayer gain will ever be enough if the fundamentals don't return to some semblance of sanity. I do have a B.S. in Economics... Meaningful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 So standard. I write about a lot of different things - life, economics, politics, sports, etc. You're so mad though...why?? And I'm not telling anyone how things should be run. I am giving an opinion. You sound old and bitter. I looked at your blog, read a couple of sentences and closed it. I don't have an opinion about whatever you write about. My opinion is about blogs in general. Get out in the real world for a few years. See how life works. Learn how business really works. Learn how the gov't really works. Pay some real taxes before you support changing anyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 Income tax or income + social + other? I believe it all taxes combined. Have to double check though. On the BEA website now. I looked at your blog, read a couple of sentences and closed it. I don't have an opinion about whatever you write about. My opinion is about blogs in general. Get out in the real world for a few years. See how life works. Learn how business really works. Learn how the gov't really works. Pay some real taxes before you support changing anyone else's. I'm in the real world and I write about it (rarely now). I pay taxes every day of my life. I don't have to pay a certain amount to understand how they work. Thanks for the advice though. Views change as you get older. It's already happened to me a bit. You'll forgive me for not giving a crap about a sample size that small. The current situation wouldn't be more than a blip on the radar if the government was able to exist on an average of 18% of the GDP of the greatest economic superpower in written history. No percentage of taxpayer gain will ever be enough if the fundamentals don't return to some semblance of sanity. Meaningful. The rise in spending is a blip on the radar too. Why can't it go both ways? Actually the decrease in revenues was a much bigger deal than the rise in spending. See: Govt Expenditures vs. Govt Receipts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I've never understood the point of blogs from regular people about themselves. If you ever come to understand why people post regular blogs about themselves, you'll probably simultaneously understand why people find it necessary to write a three-page recap of their previous year when a simple photo Christmas card would suffice nicely for the holidays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 i must have been hallucinating when i heard and read republicans, especially the on air personalities make this argument. i'm pretty sure some one has made it here: that tax revenues would actually decrease if taxes were raised on the rich because overall income would decrease and the wealthy would take their toys and go elsewhere, where they're appropriately loved. so you're admitting it's a ridiculous argument? That argument was dumbed down for the audience. Wonder why you were listening to it? The fuller argument is that by having a highly progressive tax code will hurt the overall economy and the resulting tax revenue. The goal of any economy is to promote growth and the ultimate goal for tax policy should be to maximize tax revenues. But, because politicians need to be elected and then keep their jobs, the above goals are ignored, especially by Dems. The biggest failure of the Bush tax cuts is that they removed even more people from the income tax rolls, leaving the revenues even more dependent on the rich. So when the economy goes into a crapper, and the rich incomes fall, there is a disproportionate hit to the tax revenues. The liberal answer is that when the economy recovers, the tax take will then swing back the other way as the rich get socked. But it doesn't quite work that way, because capital is mobile and rick folks' incomes are much more discretionary. Bartlett suggests that one of the research pieces he cites proves that most efficient tax rate is 73%, yet that is the overall marginal rate, not just the rate on the top earners, and data proves that the average tax take as % of GDP did not deviate materially when the top marginal rates fluctuated. The tax take at 16% is near all time lows, but it's too simplistic to blame it on the cuts to the rich. The main reason for the fall in revenues is that many more people aren't paying the tax. So, if you want to raise the flag on repealing the Bush tax cuts, then the whole thing needs to be scrapped, instead of the charade you're trying to peddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 That argument was dumbed down for the audience. Wonder why you were listening to it? The fuller argument is that by having a highly progressive tax code will hurt the overall economy and the resulting tax revenue. The goal of any economy is to promote growth and the ultimate goal for tax policy should be to maximize tax revenues. But, because politicians need to be elected and then keep their jobs, the above goals are ignored, especially by Dems. The biggest failure of the Bush tax cuts is that they removed even more people from the income tax rolls, leaving the revenues even more dependent on the rich. So when the economy goes into a crapper, and the rich incomes fall, there is a disproportionate hit to the tax revenues. The liberal answer is that when the economy recovers, the tax take will then swing back the other way as the rich get socked. But it doesn't quite work that way, because capital is mobile and rick folks' incomes are much more discretionary. Bartlett suggests that one of the research pieces he cites proves that most efficient tax rate is 73%, yet that is the overall marginal rate, not just the rate on the top earners, and data proves that the average tax take as % of GDP did not deviate materially when the top marginal rates fluctuated. The tax take at 16% is near all time lows, but it's too simplistic to blame it on the cuts to the rich. The main reason for the fall in revenues is that many more people aren't paying the tax. So, if you want to raise the flag on repealing the Bush tax cuts, then the whole thing needs to be scrapped, instead of the charade you're trying to peddle. Some may be saying that but wanted to point out that is not what I believe. I am pretty much with you. Once we get the economy moving again, people will be back paying taxes. The hard part is actually getting the economy to that point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 That bad eh? You're a year out of college? A little worldly advice: you're going to find that a bachelor's in econ (or just about anything, really) doesn't mean **** in the real world. You're also going to find that it means less here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 You're a year out of college? A little worldly advice: you're going to find that a bachelor's in econ (or just about anything, really) doesn't mean **** in the real world. You're also going to find that it means less here. Oh I know. My degree was Economics concentrating in Finance and it's basically getting me nowhere so far. But, I'm continuing the grind. It just sucks because I like econ/finance so much but so hard for me to get a job dealing with it. I blame my lack of "real" work experience. I played poker in college as a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 If you ever come to understand why people post regular blogs about themselves, you'll probably simultaneously understand why people find it necessary to write a three-page recap of their previous year when a simple photo Christmas card would suffice nicely for the holidays. Do you get my aunt's Christmas newsletter as well? She's got to get a handle on the size of her mailing list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Some may be saying that but wanted to point out that is not what I believe. I am pretty much with you. Once we get the economy moving again, people will be back paying taxes. The hard part is actually getting the economy to that point though. Ok, even if the economy improves, why would the tax take move off the 16.5% number and get to 18.5%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Oh I know. My degree was Economics concentrating in Finance and it's basically getting me nowhere so far. But, I'm continuing the grind. It just sucks because I like econ/finance so much but so hard for me to get a job dealing with it. I blame my lack of "real" work experience. I played poker in college as a job. That explains a lot, too. I know very few unemployed "conservatives" - and not many gainfully employed "liberals", either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts