Magox Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 We are far from there. No, you are wrong. At this time we need growth, and raising taxes in this economy is a bad idea. However, at some point in the future, when growth comes back, raising taxes I would say will have to be part of the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 How long til some rocket surgeon in the People's Party comes up with the brilliant conclusion that rich people renouncing their citizenship should have to pay a leaving America tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 How long til some rocket surgeon in the People's Party comes up with the brilliant conclusion that rich people renouncing their citizenship should have to pay a leaving America tax I'm assuming that would be the case for tax sheltered accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 How long til some rocket surgeon in the People's Party comes up with the brilliant conclusion that rich people renouncing their citizenship should have to pay a leaving America tax ...equivalent to about 99% of their earnings. THAT would be a truly Nazi policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 The Laffer curve isn't static. It variates relative to economic growth and dynamism, a certain tax code at a specific point in time may generate more tax revenues but at another point in time it may generate less. Right now, as slow as the economy is, lower tax rates would be more beneficial for our economy since we are in dire need of growth. It's not the be all and end all determining factor in how to reinvigorate this economy, but it certainly is a part of the equation. Under Bill Clinton, as a result of the Dot com bubble we had a booming economy, higher marginal tax rates (lowered capital gains taxes) didn't negatively impact the economy simply because there was so much growth, the economy could absorb those higher rates. Right now, we have below historic trendline growth, any increases in taxes would simply hamper growth more so than what we are already seeing. No, you are wrong. At this time we need growth, and raising taxes in this economy is a bad idea. However, at some point in the future, when growth comes back, raising taxes I would say will have to be part of the solution. Ok, so what where would you have it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 How long til some rocket surgeon in the People's Party comes up with the brilliant conclusion that rich people renouncing their citizenship should have to pay a leaving America tax H.R. 3056 (110th): Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007 110th Congress, 2007–2009 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to use private debt collection companies, to delay implementation of withholding taxes on government contractors, to revise the tax rules on expatriation, and for other purposes. Introduced: Jul 17, 2007 Sponsor: Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY15] Status: Died (Passed House) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Ok, so what where would you have it now? I don't know. But what I do know is that the answer wouldnt be north of what it is today, considering how anemic economic growth is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) Is this an example of you adding to the discussion? Your politics are once again PROVEN to be inadequate so you toss out a slogan? Yeah, let's wonder why other poster's call you an idiot. its hard to argue with facts, huh? pretty soon we will all being making 20,000 a year working 12 hr days and this will be considered upper middle class... oh wait, thats texas now... Edited May 12, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I don't know. But what I do know is that the answer wouldnt be north of what it is today, considering how anemic economic growth is. You think it's impossible to raise it without contributing to further decline? Direct cause and effect? Don't you think this issue is overblown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 its hard to argue with facts, huh? pretty soon we will all being making 20,000 a year working 12 hr days and this will be considered upper middle class... oh wait, thats texas now... Which is why median household income is 46K? http://http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 You think it's impossible to raise it without contributing to further decline? Direct cause and effect? Don't you think this issue is overblown? I don't know if I'd say its "impossible", depends on how you quantify or judge the outcome. If you spent a trillion dollars and raised taxes some, Im almost certain that over the short to possibly medium term you'd have more growth. However, spending alone doesn't solve our economic structural woes. I wrote alot about this here on PPP and about the healthcare law. I'll give you an example, look at the first stimulus bill under Obama. Basically it was comprised of very little "shovel ready" infrastructure projects, but alot of keynesian short-term tax cuts and bailouts for state and local governments so there wouldn't have to be so state/local government layoffs. Well, those layoffs occured after the stimulus ran out anyway, and we're still seeing them occur now. Those layoffs had to occur, simply because most states are obligated to balance their budgets. If it wasn't for the pressure of the public sector unions, coercing lawmakers in exchange for campaign funds, then you wouldn't have all these obscenely ridiculous unfunded pension benefits, massively overemployed public sector workforce (before the 'great recession') and crappy educational standards that we've seen over the past few decades, all at the expense of the taxpayer. So of course there is alot of anger out there against the public sector unions and the corrupt politicians who bend over their constituencies in order to protect these entities. Do you think its fair to use Federal Taxpayer money to bail out these individuals? What happens when the stimulus money runs out, ask for another bailout again? Of course when the money runs out, liberals, the very same ones who crafted these backroom deals with these public sector unions, cry foul that conservatives don't want to bail out their corrupt deals. I gotta tell you, I absolutely loathe the politicans and public sector bosses who put all these states in the dire situation that they are in today. Just look at Chris Christies approval rating in the blue state of NJ, a state where there constituency is notoriously tough on their elected leaders. To your second point, "direct cause and effect?" If you raise taxes in this economy, is that the question? Yes, I mean obviously it depends how much and to who. You raise it on everyone, then yeah, it would have a profound effect. If you raise taxes slightly on the "wealthy", it still would apply, but not nearly as much. Why would anyone want to raise taxes on anyone in this economy? Why would you want to, for what purposes? Do I think it's overblown? What, raising taxes in a down economy? No, I don't. Our structural debt issues have more to do with spending than revenues. Im not advocating that we start hatcheting away at spending now. What the hard right doesn't understand is that if you start cutting massively now, the economy will certainly fall back into a recession. The economy is too weak to pull back now. The debt markets will most likely continue to give us breathing room, IF: 1) They believe we are going to begin to start growing at an adequate enough, sustained pace without short-term keynesisan programs. 2) If we put in a credible medium-long term deficit reduction plan that includes addressing the entitlement programs, which president Obama has no desire to do. We need structural solutions to repairing this economy and this president doesn't have any of the tools in his toolbox to get the job done. He doesn't understand business, I don't care how much you protest and dislike this comment, but that is the absolute truth. He is a creature of the "community", he places the concepts of "fairness" over economic prosperity. He believes that wealth distribution should be included in economic policy. ANd I hate to break it to you, that scares the **** out of many small businesses and corporations. Small businesses cite regulations as the number one impediment to job hiring. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152654/health-costs-gov-regulations-curb-small-business-hiring.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/150287/gov-regulations-top-small-business-owners-problem-list.aspx Small-business owners in the United States are most likely to say complying with government regulations (22%) is the most important problem facing them today, followed by consumer confidence in the economy (15%) and lack of consumer demand (12%). This is what small-businesses are saying, the engine of economic job growth, not those dastardly corporations. I lost my career because of Dodd Frank. Im one of the victims of this regulation, and there were many others as well that were personally connected. Turn on CNBC, its business after business after business that cite regulations as the main roadblock they face. That's why when you hear the saying from small businesses owners, " I don't need assistance from the government, just let me keep a little more of what I earn and stay out of the way", that's all they are looking for. Corporations right now are sitting on over $2 Trillion, just sitting there. If you want a powerful stimulus plan, that doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime, then all one would need to do is sit with these corporations and figure out a way how they can unleash that into the economy. And again, this president doesn't have the innate sense to make that happen. These corporations are looking for a friendlier business climate and more certainty, if you provide it to them, they will unload some of that, and it will be ALL funded by private sector dollars. That's what the administration should be obsessing about day after day. How do I get these corporations to unleash all that money? But nope, they would rather go out campaigning on the Buffet rule, which would do nothing to grow the economy and pay for about 9 hours of government service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) Which is why median household income is 46K? http://http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html thats household income... meaning all people in the house, not an individual job... way to not tell the truth. again, its about 20 or close to it, or in other words, pathetic... texas also leads the nation in lower wage jobs. Edited May 12, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Per capita money income in past 12 months (2010 dollars) 2006-2010 -texas $24,870 $27,334 if this is the avg, then the median is even lower... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Yeah!!! Bad Man!!! Trying to save money is now such a bad thing!! He should just shut up, and pay his "fair share" huh???? Look.... there is a reason affluent people are leaving states like MD, NY, NJ, CA, and MI in droves!!! They are trying to SAVE MONEY from the rip off artists we have elected to gubment... Then, once in gubment, they get to use their position, to ensure re-election, by promising to give more to their constituents.... But the problem is, that MORE, has to come from somewhere, huh??? So, make a small group of people out to be the bad guy (sound familiar?), create disparity among the people, and the best part!!!! Trump democracy!!!! The majority said!!! I was voted in because of a majority!!! I represent the majority!!! When 50% plus 1, can take from the minority, for whatever reason!!!! a country is doomed That is why we were established as a republic, and not a democracy.... Unfortunately, we have lost our way, due to years of gubment edjercashon, and always yearning for what others have, instead of being willing to go out a earn it for ourselves..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Yeah!!! Bad Man!!! Trying to save money is now such a bad thing!! He should just shut up, and pay his "fair share" huh???? Look.... there is a reason affluent people are leaving states like MD, NY, NJ, CA, and MI in droves!!! They are trying to SAVE MONEY from the rip off artists we have elected to gubment... Then, once in gubment, they get to use their position, to ensure re-election, by promising to give more to their constituents.... But the problem is, that MORE, has to come from somewhere, huh??? So, make a small group of people out to be the bad guy (sound familiar?), create disparity among the people, and the best part!!!! Trump democracy!!!! The majority said!!! I was voted in because of a majority!!! I represent the majority!!! When 50% plus 1, can take from the minority, for whatever reason!!!! a country is doomed That is why we were established as a republic, and not a democracy.... Unfortunately, we have lost our way, due to years of gubment edjercashon, and always yearning for what others have, instead of being willing to go out a earn it for ourselves..... ironically, ge doesnt pay taxes, and neither does mitt romney. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/notax2012.pdf only poor people should pay taxes... Edited May 13, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 ironically, ge doesnt pay taxes, and neither does mitt romney. I know about GE due to a sweet deal from the current gubment administration, but would like a link to the claim Romney doesn't pay taxes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 I know about GE due to a sweet deal from the current gubment administration, but would like a link to the claim Romney doesn't pay taxes.... its called corporatism, not democratic/republic govt.... you see its not govt, its corporations using govt against the people.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 haha c'mon now rich folk pay a lot of taxes...to say only poor people pay taxes is hurting my ability to be taken seriously here MDP...haha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 haha c'mon now rich folk pay a lot of taxes...to say only poor people pay taxes is hurting my ability to be taken seriously here MDP...haha... if you count the amount of tax subsidies bain capital received, then romney probably paid zero. maybe 1%... lol hell ge got 18.9 in tax subsidies. not only did they not pay taxes, they took your tax dollars...lol isnt it great! a poor person cleaning **** pays roughly 20% a billionaire pays zero! so i guess supply side economics means rich people dont pay taxes... in other words, go !@#$ yourself poor people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 if you count the amount of tax subsidies bain capital received, then romney probably paid zero. maybe 1%... lol hell ge got 18.9 in tax subsidies. not only did they not pay taxes, they took your tax dollars...lol isnt it great! a poor person cleaning **** pays roughly 20% a billionaire pays zero! so i guess supply side economics means rich people dont pay taxes... in other words, go !@#$ yourself poor people! Bain Capital's tax subsidies are credited against Romney's individual income tax? (Romney paid 14% in 2010.) I know about GE due to a sweet deal from the current gubment administration, but would like a link to the claim Romney doesn't pay taxes.... Has nothing to do with the current administration. GE's income tax was offset by a tax credit from GE Capital (or their income was offset by a GE Capital loss - I forget which exactly). GE actually paid something like $2B in taxes...GE Capital had a $2B+ credit, most of which went to GE's coffers, as they're the majority owner of GE Capital. That would have happened in any administration. Doesn't ANYONE know how the real world works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts