Bush tax cut analysis

August · 09-27-10, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Other than the fact it has worked everytime it has been tried.

You'd never get a Democrat to agree with it. Socialism has to be paid for somehow...

SteamWake · 09-27-10, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

You'd never get a Democrat to agree with it. Socialism has to be paid for somehow...

I know I dont even know why I bother.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm

Sailor Steve · 09-27-10, 09:57 AM

On the other hand I don't see why taxation and the economy are compared at all. The only reason for taxes to exist is that government has no means to generate revenue, so if we want any kind of government programs at all we have to have some taxes.

But my opinion is that they should always be considered a necessary evil, and only used where absolutely needed. Politicians like to come up with programs that will make them look good, and then force others to pay for them later.

"It is no contradiction—the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
—John F. Kennedy, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President; January 21, 1963

SteamWake · 09-27-10, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

government has no means to generate revenue.

You answered your own question Steve.

Sure taxes are needed to keep essential services up and running like fire and rescue, etc.

But you put more tax burden on a society that has the highest percentage of pepole on food stamps. More pepole in the 'poverty level'. Well Im sure you can see where this is a losing propisition.

"Essential" services not crap like teaching Africans how to wash their genetailia.

tater · 09-27-10, 12:33 PM

That analysis is rubbish.

Look at revenue as a % of GDP. It remains remarkably constant in the face of changes to the marginal tax rates.

When the top marginal rate dropped in the early 80s (hugely dropped from a top rate ~70%), tax revenues initially fell by a percent or two, then came back up.

The goal should always be to have the very lowest rate of taxation possible to support spending that is required. Required as in mandated by the Constitution. Defense. Interstate trade, perhaps. Entitlement spending is pretty indefensible constitutionally. I'm fine with a "safety net." That's great, but really look at the analogy. You put safety nets up where people MIGHT fall. You don't sting them up, then push every single person nearby off into the nets. The vast majority of Americans should never see any "safety net" money. None. It should be a fraction of what it is now, only designed to protect the people who have nothing else.

Spending needs to be cut, period. Current spending as a % of GDP is grossly higher than it should be, and the problem is not the discretionary budget, but "programatic" spending (entitlements).

Torvald Von Mansee · 09-27-10, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

"Essential" services not crap like teaching Africans how to wash their genetailia.

And yet...you conservatives never seem to mention the 600 pound hog feeding at the public trough: the military-industrial-congressional complex (I prefer the original term Eisenhower was going to use).

We need to spend twice as much on the military as something like the next largest 30 countries...why?

tater · 09-27-10, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

And yet...you conservatives never seem to mention the 600 pound hog feeding at the public trough: the military-industrial-congressional complex (I prefer the original term Eisenhower was going to use).

We need to spend twice as much on the military as something like the next largest 30 countries...why?

If we didn't, the free world would have to invent a replacement for us, that's why.

The US occupies a unique geopolitical position in the world. It;s not just the size of the economy, but our physical location away from other major powers (Europe and Asia), and having access to both oceans (and a Navy to control both of them).

Regardless, the military is not the bulk of spending. It's maybe 50% of the discretionary budget, but the discretionary budget is only 1/3 of the US budget—2/3 is social programs (entitlements). That doesn't count debt service, either.

Any meaningful spending cuts MUST come from entitlements.

How about medicare/medicaid stop covering any non-palliative care for terminal disease? Yep, "death panels." If you want to pay for stuff like that, have private insurance. People on charity care should be SOL—that care is ineffective anyway, and the outcome—death—is certain anyway.

09-27-10, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Regardless, the military is not the bulk of spending. It's maybe 50% of the discretionary budget, but the discretionary budget is only 1/3 of the US budget—2/3 is social programs (entitlements). That doesn't count debt service, either.

Any meaningful spending cuts MUST come from entitlements.

Entitlements?
For a long long time the major expense the US govt had was pensions and payments to civil war vets or their relatives.
The current entitlements program for social spending on vets and their families is the 2nd biggest dept of the government ......after the military.
So where are you going to swing that axe on social spending?

mookiemookie · 09-27-10, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Regardless, the military is not the bulk of spending. It's maybe 50% of the discretionary budget, but the discretionary budget is only 1/3 of the US budget—2/3 is social programs (entitlements). That doesn't count debt service, either.

Torvald Von Mansee · 09-27-10, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

If we didn't, the free world would have to invent a replacement for us, that's why.

The US occupies a unique geopolitical position in the world. It;s not just the size of the economy, but our physical location away from other major powers (Europe and Asia), and having access to both oceans (and a Navy to control both of them).

It's not our job to police the world, only guard our interests. And there's PLENTY of bloat in the military budget.

tater · 09-27-10, 05:52 PM

BTW, can I just not pay, dunno, say 42 grand in taxes next year? Or heck, just the first 42 grand from Bush cut expiration over the next few years.

I promise to pay it all back if I'm ever made Secretary of the Treasury. Really, every penny. Heck, I'll pay it back if I get ANY cabinet position. That's fair, right?

09-27-10, 09:57 AM	#3
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	On the other hand I don't see why taxation and the economy are compared at all. The only reason for taxes to exist is that government has no means to generate revenue, so if we want any kind of government programs at all we have to have some taxes. But my opinion is that they should always be considered a necessary evil, and only used where absolutely needed. Politicians like to come up with programs that will make them look good, and then force others to pay for them later. "It is no contradiction—the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates." —John F. Kennedy, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President; January 21, 1963 __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

09-27-10, 12:33 PM	#5
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	That analysis is rubbish. Look at revenue as a % of GDP. It remains remarkably constant in the face of changes to the marginal tax rates. When the top marginal rate dropped in the early 80s (hugely dropped from a top rate ~70%), tax revenues initially fell by a percent or two, then came back up. The goal should always be to have the very lowest rate of taxation possible to support spending that is required. Required as in mandated by the Constitution. Defense. Interstate trade, perhaps. Entitlement spending is pretty indefensible constitutionally. I'm fine with a "safety net." That's great, but really look at the analogy. You put safety nets up where people MIGHT fall. You don't sting them up, then push every single person nearby off into the nets. The vast majority of Americans should never see any "safety net" money. None. It should be a fraction of what it is now, only designed to protect the people who have nothing else. Spending needs to be cut, period. Current spending as a % of GDP is grossly higher than it should be, and the problem is not the discretionary budget, but "programatic" spending (entitlements).

09-27-10, 05:52 PM	#11
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	BTW, can I just not pay, dunno, say 42 grand in taxes next year? Or heck, just the first 42 grand from Bush cut expiration over the next few years. I promise to pay it all back if I'm ever made Secretary of the Treasury. Really, every penny. Heck, I'll pay it back if I get ANY cabinet position. That's fair, right?