The proposed 2012 budget...

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

good point Mookie, the last time the U.S. unemployment rate dipped below 3% was in ....1953.

when the top tax rate was....drumroll.....93%

Maybe we'll get lucky and the Federal government shutdown will make everyone realize they're not as vital to our continued existence as they like to make themselves out to be.

Maybe the shutdown will last, then people can celebrate the affect on veterans care, the tending of such trivial things like national museums and monuments, the loss of tourism and of course problems with travelling, I look forward to the complaints about unsecured borders and why there is a lack of police on the streets.
Now of course some of those are instant impacts as "essential" workers can continue working without pay though can still recieve benefits, others are more longer term impacts.
I would love to see the teabaggers jumping around boasting of how they stopped the government putting new border agents down south to stop the mexican horde

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Maybe the shutdown will last, then people can celebrate the affect on veterans care, the tending of such trivial things like national museums and monuments, the loss of tourism and of course problems with travelling, I look forward to the complaints about unsecured borders and why there is a lack of police on the streets.
Now of course some of those are instant impacts as "essential" workers can continue working without pay though can still recieve benefits, others are more longer term impacts.
I would love to see the teabaggers jumping around boasting of how they stopped the government putting new border agents down south to stop the mexican horde

US citizens are very well armed. If there were no government and no law then the problem of immigration might get dealt with quite quickly by those who have strong feelings on the matter.

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

when the top tax rate was....drumroll.....93%

Do have even the slightest clue how the tax code works (and did work)?

Tax brackets tax all adjusted income above a certain value. So you have a 95% top marginal rate on, whatever, income over 1M$. That means that the last dollar before 1M$ is taxed at the next lower rate, and so on.

In addition, when the tax brackets were higher, the loopholes were vastly greater. There were also like 25 tax brackets. All you need do is look at US tax revenues as a % of GDP. It varies in a range of high teens to ~20% of GDP. The top marginal rate apparently had nothing to do with total revenues. In point of fact, the "rich" pay a higher % of taxes actually collected than ever.

So Ryan's talk about limiting spending to 20% of GDP is entirely reasonable. History shows that this is in fact slightly above total federal revenues. Adjusting tax rates should certainly be on the table. Alternately, scrapping the current tax code which is built to intentionally be complicated. It is full of pay offs as "incentives." Just set a flat tax designed to put 20% of GDP into the coffers.

Medicare and SS need to be cut.

I could promise top give you, gimpy, $100,000 in a week if you give me $10,000 today. Would you jump for joy? Why, when I don't have 100 grand to give you? So 1 week from now, I'd become persona non grata at subsim, and you get nothing—in fact you are out 10 grand. What if Neal convinces me that SS is so cool that maybe I could give you something, and I could stay around... so I offer you $50,000 for your 10 grand, instead. Do you take it, or whine that I owed you more, and get nothing?

That's where we are as a country. The entitlements are ridiculous promises that cannot be kept. If the country goes the way of Greece/Spain/Portugal, the people counting on SS/MC will be SOL. Ditto if we go the way of Argentina (hyper-inflation). Bottom line is that someone has to get off their ass and propose budgets that actually deal with the problems. That means reducing spending.

So far we have Ryan's plan. That's it. The administration and the Dems have as the plan to spend 1.2 trillion per year more than we have, then crow that it's 100 billion less than it could've been. That's it, that's their plan.

Look at the current dems. They owned both houses, and neglected to do their job last year and make a budget. THAT is why there could be a "shut down." Had they done their job last year when they controlled the entire government, no impasse now. Instead, they are bent about cuts that are chump change compared to their own vast overspending. If they can't pass 60 B$ in cuts, how can they address ~1.5 trillion in needed cuts (not over 10 years, but THIS year)? They can't because they have no desire to cut spending. Not now, not ever.

[Bilge_Rat]

Tater,

I dont disagree. Limiting spending to 20% of GDP is entirely doable since it was more or less the historical average.

What is not doable is: limiting spending to 20% of GDP, plus cutting taxes as well and expecting to balance the budget.

There is no magic formula. To balance the budget, you have to cut spending, which means cutting programs or services and raise taxes to generate revenues.

There is no free ride, every other country in this situation has had to bite the bullet and make tough decisions.

[tater]

Tax revenues are already very nearly 20%.

There is no need to mess with them unless you scrap them and start over. The tax that most needs reduction right now is the corporate income tax. Slash it to a reasonable level, but eliminate all loopholes so that they actually pay.

Raising the payroll tax (or cap), OTOH, should be out of the question. SS/MC need to come from the payroll taxes as they are. If there is a shortfall, cut benis. It's not fair for people who paid in at under even the current 15.3% FICA to expect workers now to shell out more, when all the money they paid in was already spent—on themselves.

Right now, what is the democrat plan, exactly? Spend ourselves into solvency?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by tater

Tax revenues are already very nearly 20%.

There is no need to mess with them unless you scrap them and start over. The tax that most needs reduction right now is the corporate income tax. Slash it to a reasonable level, but eliminate all loopholes so that they actually pay.

Raising the payroll tax (or cap), OTOH, should be out of the question. SS/MC need to come from the payroll taxes as they are. If there is a shortfall, cut benis. It's not fair for people who paid in at under even the current 15.3% FICA to expect workers now to shell out more, when all the money they paid in was already spent—on themselves.

Right now, what is the democrat plan, exactly? Spend ourselves into solvency?

I've said 100 times here, corporations don't care about the tax as long as they can buy regulation/loopholes. Both parties have been behind the loopholes, but the GOP are the big players. Everytime they've lowered corporate taxes, we got more loopholes not less, you think I would believe
them again. Let's get rid of all the loopholes first, then we can talk lowering the rate.

I cringe when I see corporations giving 300-600 million dollar stock options to CEO's, they generate hefty tax deductions.

Obama was right when he said.

"There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code...that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world."

They pay about 25% at best. Has it created more jobs, built our economy, nope? It's creating a two class economy

In the end it's a stupid smoke and mirrors game. I agree we need spending caps, but again, let's see what they choose to spend on. As I understand this is just a cap, later behind closed doors they'll decide what to spend on what.

[tater]

I agree. Actually the US corporate tax system is more like the old income tax system when it had higher rates, and far more loopholes.

That's why I said up the thread that the US should pass a very l;ow corporate rate, but with zero loopholes. 14 or 15%, flat.

BTW, I think that the rate should apply to churches as well. The "gentleman's agreement" that churches will not engage in ay political activity has always been BS. As such, I don't think they meet 501c3 (note that this applies to any entity that is at all partisan).

Anyway, you cannot compare income taxes from the past without a heavy weighting applied, as well as good data on what the actual effective rates were. The weighting applies to tax revenue as a % of GDP weighted to spending. For a long time it was thought enough for the federal government to spend ~1% of GDP per year. It's past 20% now. Even under FDR it was mostly under 10% of GDP.

SPENDING is the problem, not taxation. Cut federal spending to 10% of GDP, and taxes can be far lower. The pitch to democrats can simply be "we want a New Deal, exactly the same as FDR had it!" (don't tell the hoi polloi that this means hacking spending by over a factor of 2, just pitch it as Rooseveltian socialism).

This is easy to accomplish. ~2/3 of spending is "entitlements." Cut entitlements by 75%, and you've just halved the budget—and you'll still be spending far more than FDR did on social programs.

That's why I said up the thread that the US should pass a very l;ow corporate rate, but with zero loopholes. 14 or 15%, flat.

Which would be bad for business, "loopholes" are there for a reason, you need to stop abuse of "loopholes" not close them.
Passing a low corporate rate will achieve very little, there is always somewhere which will offer a lower rate.

So you know what that means don't you...more government and more regulation
The very things they say they need less of.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

when the top tax rate was....drumroll.....93%

I don't know how you can think a 93% tax rate is fair.

[Dan D]

That is why it is called "Houston,Texas" and not "Houston, Taxes".

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I don't know how you can think a 93% tax rate is fair.

I don't think he's arguing the point that it's fair, but it certainly does poke holes in the "the solution to everything, including unemployment, is to lower taxes" argument.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I don't think he's arguing the point that it's fair, but it certainly does poke holes in the "the solution to everything, including unemployment, is to lower taxes" argument.

thanks mookie, im glad somebody knows what i was getting at.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I don't think he's arguing the point that it's fair, but it certainly does poke holes in the "the solution to everything, including unemployment, is to lower taxes" argument.

Nice straw man mookie but I don't think you could find that anyone here that has made that argument.

Lower tax arguments are always coupled with decreased spending and improved efficiency. They have to be. Federal spending must be reigned in or even 93% tax rates aren't going to make a bit of difference.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

Nice straw man mookie but I don't think you could find that anyone here that has made that argument.

Lower tax arguments are always coupled with decreased spending and improved efficiency. They have to be. Federal spending must be reigned in or even 93% tax rates aren't going to make a bit of difference.

who said mookie was speaking about you guys? I think he was speaking politicians and their trickle down theory.