Permanent tax breaks for the upper 1% ?!?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

It is just a hed herring to keep businesses holding onto their money as long as possible to make things extra bad in the economy to help republicans. That is what the entire meme is about.

I think you give them too much credit. The tax cuts were about votes and political capital, period. That's all they're still about. And if it were up to me, I'd expand them.

Cut state spending drastically, cut taxes drastically (especially on business), and watch the economy grow.

[Zachstar]

Grow in China you mean. Where companies have used the savings from the tax cuts to expand in.

You are laughable if you think expanding the tax cuts will grow business anywhere near the levels investment in technology will.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Businesses invest in technology, ZS. Marketable, usable technology. They also generate the revenue you want to invest in technology. Gotta have a horse to pull the cart, boss

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Businesses invest in technology, ZS. Marketable, usable technology. They also generate the revenue you want to invest in technology. Gotta have a horse to pull the cart, boss

I always love it when someone says that companies invest in the future. What was that lovely bush era term... "Trickle-Down" economics.

They generate the revenue for themselves and do it greatly. Holding 1.8 TRILLION dollars hostage to influence the results of the election.

Their investments mostly are on technology they can build in china with labor that gets paid pennies on the dollar. And even then it amounts to little more than who can write the most patents with key technological advancements killed because a company wants to be a troll with its patents.

Oh and FYI they invested in technology for US when their Taxes were MUCH MUCH MUCH greater.

[Tchocky]

Not a great way to watch the economy grow - cutting taxes on people who already have lots of money and aren't likely to spend any more.
Expand the EITC.

[Zachstar]

The economy will grow again even if democrats win big in November. This is just like the other election year stunts corp groups do in order to try to drive turnout for republicans. 1.8 Trillion held while companies say they are suffering. Bah they will spend after the elections.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

I always love it when someone says that companies invest in the future. What was that lovely bush era term... "Trickle-Down" economics.

They generate the revenue for themselves and do it greatly. Holding 1.8 TRILLION dollars hostage to influence the results of the election.

Their investments mostly are on technology they can build in china with labor that gets paid pennies on the dollar. And even then it amounts to little more than who can write the most patents with key technological advancements killed because a company wants to be a troll with its patents.

Oh and FYI they invested in technology for US when their Taxes were MUCH MUCH MUCH greater.

Taxes were not greater. Taxes as a function of GDP have remained relatively constant in recent years, and were in fact far LOWER during that period. US government outlays used to be about 1/3 of what they are now as a function of GDP.

In the 1930s, for example, the high for US government spending was ~10% of GDP. Tax receipts were considerably lower then, too, on the order of 5-7% of GDP (the rest being deficit spending). After WW2 (where spending was more than double receipts), things stabilized and the receipts vs expenditures have been relatively constant since then at ~20% of GDP (receipts generally slightly lower than expenses, but over time it's real money).

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Cut state spending drastically, cut taxes drastically (especially on business), and watch the economy grow.

Except that doesn't happen.







The correlation between taxes and GDP or income growth rate is just not there.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Apparently the correlation between top income tax rate and GDP growth isn't there, but that's not what I was arguing for and anything beyond a very vague correlation wouldn't make much sense, anyway. For the record, though, I would cut it; 10% income tax for everybody, no corporate taxes, 1% capital gains tax, no property tax, no social security tax, low sales tax, and low universal tariffs. No price controls or subsidies, either.

[Platapus]

The government does not need to raise the tax rate, all they need, and in my opinion should, do is cut deductions.

I have never seen the logic in setting high tax rates and then allowing myriad deductions. How about lowering the tax rate and getting rid of the deductions.

Deductions only seem to benefit those who can afford tax attorneys and have access to "alternative" tax shelters.

How much of the IRS budget is spent dealing with tax deduction issues?

So no, I don't get worried if the rich have their tax rates increased from 36% to 39%, they have access to tax attorneys and have myriad ways of sheltering their money to the point they may be paying less in taxes than I do as a working slug. And in in the end, they are still rich.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Apparently the correlation between top income tax rate and GDP growth isn't there, but that's not what I was arguing for and anything beyond a very vague correlation wouldn't make much sense, anyway.

It's meant more of a refutation of the trickle down, supply side, Reaganomics nonsense. But the idea still stands when you consider average taxes across all brackets as we can see from the chart below. Sure, it's only through 2004 but it's close enough for casual discussion.



Looking at that chart, I'll bet there's an interesting correlation between size of the federal deficit and tax rate for the top earning 0.01% of taxpayers. There's other factors at work there, so it's not as simplistic as that comparison would imply, but I bet there's something to it.

From 1787 until 1920 there was no personal income tax. Federal spending was at or less than 3% of GDP, there were no social programs to catch the failing. How ever did the US survive?

[Zachstar]

VERY harshly if you recall. Nothing to help the weak or poorest survive. Doing good was far more reliant on who you knew than your potential.

Originally Posted by Zachstar

VERY harshly if you recall. Nothing to help the weak or poorest survive. Doing good was far more reliant on who you knew than your potential.

And how pray tell how would you/I recall that? Are you saying you were born some time between 1787 and 1920, or are you just thinking it would have been harder to suck off others back then? Which is what it is really about.

From 1787 until 1920 there was no personal income tax

Really?

Federal spending was at or less than 3% of GDP

Are you sure?

, there were no social programs to catch the failing

Even though government social programs started straight after the revolution?

So it raises the question, was any of those 3 things you claimed actually true?