Interesting Read

[stebo0728]

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/ ... oblem.html

Thoughts?

[heliochrome85]

the author dated both Laura Ingrahm AND Ann Coulter.

hardly unbiased.

[stebo0728]

That was an awefully fast dismissal of the article. How about some thoughts on the actual content of the article?

[heliochrome85]

his last article was the one in which Newt Gingrich said President Obama may hold a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview."

i am well aquainted with the works of mr d'souza. he writes for the NRO, and has been at the forefront of criticism of this administration.

[heliochrome85]

But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.

yeah, absolute trash.

[stebo0728]

Obviously its a bit of hyperbole, but ... is it such a stretch to think that perhaps he admired his father and may emulate some of his values? And I would absolutely agree that Obama holds a firm belief that ALL wealth people got that way ONLY by exploitation. Which sorta gets back to IB's old argument that you only get where you get by manipulating society, which may be true to a degree, but that does not mean it ALWAYS involves unethical or explicative behavior. Why does Obama believe its so egregious to allow the top 2% to benefit from the same tax cuts? Ever seen the numbers of what percentage of the tax burden the top 2% carry? And then somehow the lowest percentile that pays NOTHING is somehow still unfair? How can it get any more fair than NOTHING? Obama is smart, at least book smart, and Im sure he understands the inverse relationship help between tax rates and tax revenue. Clearly lower taxes bring in more money in the long run, and our greater benefit comes from extending the tax cuts, or making them permanent, and then massively overhauling spending. But still he wants to "punish" the top 2%. Why? There has to be some sort of philosophical or psychological reason.

[IBCoupe]

Why does Obama believe its so egregious to allow the top 2% to benefit from the same tax cuts?

Who says he does? Why are you assigning an ulterior motive, when every argument against it is that it will cost 700 billion over 10 years and won't actually serve to stimulate the economy in the short term?

Or, to turn it back on you, why would it be so egregious to let expire the tax cuts for those people that many in Congress would be willing to let expire the tax cuts for the other 97-98%?

[stebo0728]

Who says he does? Why are you assigning an ulterior motive, when every argument against it is that it will cost 700 billion over 10 years and won't actually serve to stimulate the economy in the short term?

Why are you assigning a cost to people keeping their own money? Cut some programs that would have been funded by that 700 billion. Start running a fiscally responsible government.

Or, to turn it back on you, why would it be so egregious to let expire the tax cuts for those people that many in Congress would be willing to let expire the tax cuts for the other 97-98%?

If the only workable solution is to get the tax cuts renewed minus the top 2% then ok, im on board for that. Im just addressing why its so horrible to give those cuts as well.

[IBCoupe]

Why are you assigning a cost to people keeping their own money? Cut some programs that would have been funded by that 700 billion. Start running a fiscally responsible government.

Because a tax cut is a tax cut. It's lost revenue. Lost revenue is a cost. Don't like it? Sorry, but I'm not going to argue with you about that. We certainly need to cut some programs but we also need to raise taxes. Start running a fiscally responsible government.

If the only workable solution is to get the tax cuts renewed minus the top 2% then ok, im on board for that. Im just addressing why its so horrible to give those cuts as well.

No, you're fighting straw men. Nobody of any importance is making the arguments that you're arguing against.

[stebo0728]

We dont need to raise taxes, unless of course you are actually intending to reduce revenues inbound. Do we desire to reduce revenues? If so then by all means increase taxes.

[heliochrome85]

economists disagree.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/7 ... hypocrites

[IBCoupe]

What evidence do you present to support the theory that tax cuts increase revenue? Or that tax increases decrease revenue?

As I'm no economist, I'll just leave this here for you to explain to me why it's wrong:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

[stebo0728]

Im not economist either, and my eyes looked like krispy kreme donuts when I followed that link, so I couldnt begin to tell you what was wrong or right about those figures. Since we are just article dropping now, let me drop a few.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0302-13.pdf

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwt ... agtxct.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st159.pdf

Theres plenty more that all say the same thing, I basically googled "tax revenue related to tax rates" and walked down the list, every hit was pretty much agreeable.

Helio - Im sure you were making a broad general statement, which is fine, just as long as we realize, not all economist agree on any point, let alone this one in particular, then the story becomes, what evidence to you give the most weight, and what do you deem conjecture.

Heres the thing, people look out for their own first, and thats fine, thats what makes the capitalist system work, this system is most compatible with human nature. I say this to point out, the goal of the government is to strike a balance with tax rates. The higher the rate, the more likely it costs a company or individual less to shelter that money somewhere else. If however our tax rates are set at such that it costs more for the money to be sheltered elsewhere, then the money comes back here, to work in OUR system. This is why the inverse relationship of tax rates and revenues exists. Upon examining some of these studies, and I admit I sorta of perused them rather than crammed them, but it seems the inverse correlation is stronger the more drastic the cut. The cuts in the 20's that took the highest rate from 77% down to 28% made revenues skyrocket. But when the hike or cut is minute, perhaps the effect is a bit more muffled in the numbers. This cut we are talking about now is only an average of 3% at each bracket, so the increase/decrease of revenues is more likely non-perceivable when looking at fudgie graphs and charts.

[srellim234]

I have an honest question that I have neither seen nor seen answered with regards to tax cuts for the wealthiest. I'm not advocating anything here; I'm just trying to find info.

Conservatives and Republicans constantly argue about the benefits to the U.S. of lowering taxes on the wealthiest. The argument is usually that they will spend or invest it locally to benefit Americans. If they're that wealthy, I see them banking it or investing in stocks but diversifying their holdings globally to hedge against financial collapse here. If they put the money in a Chase, Citi, B of A, etc., that money is doing as much or more overseas since those companies are now lending internationally. Same for the scenario of them investing in a Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Chevron, etc. on the stock market. The majority of the jobs those companies are creating is through international expansion, not here.

I'm all for a flat rate income tax but I don't see the wealthiest keeping the money here to help the U.S. when it makes better fiscal sense and security for them to invest internationally. What am I missing here?

[96Qowner]

The fact is probably that no one can accurately track what happens to investment when tax rates are adjusted. For, instance, the CBO always assumes the future remains as it is now when it projects future tax revenue. If you cut tax rates, the CBO assumes no change in behavior - just a revenue loss. The same is true for no change in rates - it assumes the same amount of revenue will come in at a steady pace. That's part of the problem with the study that was linked. It compared actual revenue against the revenue from a increase in trade. It calculated what actually happened after a rate decrease, but made assumptions about the revenue from no rate change.

Think of it like a sale. Stores lower prices to drive up volume, receiving more income than they would have earned at the higher price.

Or just think of Government vs business. The Government doesn't make a profit and isn't interested in efficiency or innovation. Money gets sucked into the system and stays there. There are no profits, therefore no tax revenue. On the other hand, business earns income, which can be taxed. Business must constantly be at its best or a competitor will eat its lunch. Unlike Government, there's an alternative, so business can't be inefficient and must be innovative. Money accomplishes more in business than Government.

If our corporate tax rates were lower, foreign business would be more interested in investing in business enterprises here. However much money wealthy people have will be invested into the best business climate worldwide, through mutual funds or portfolio managers, etc. The worst possible climate for the US would be high tax rates on the wealthy and high corporate rates. Income to the wealthy would be invested overseas, and investment into business enterprises would be concentrated away from the US. We already have high corporate rates.

[srellim234]

Businesses cannot continue to lower prices and expect income to go up. At some point the law of diminishing returns and balancing income, profit and expenses prevent them from going lower.

My personal feeling is that if we had a flat rate income tax and NO corporate taxes we wouldn't know what to do with all the jobs and investment we'd have. Rather than tax the corporations, allow the corporations to keep the money for internal investment in equipment and personnel. A corporation is not a person. It is a business. The corporate money could even be kept in a general bank account if that's how the corporate management wants to set it aside for a "rainy day". Once any of that money goes to an individual in the form of dividends, payroll, stock options, expense reimbursements etc. then it becomes income and that's when it should be taxed. Most company execs I know would be more than willing to add the tax amount to reimbursement checks if they knew the company wasn't going to get a tax bill and the employee was to be taxed on it.

[96Qowner]

Add a steady reduction in the size and cost of government, and I'm on board with that. The economy would explode with growth and we'd actually be able to pay off the hundred trillion or so that we owe.

[AZhitman]

What evidence do you present to support the theory that tax cuts increase revenue? Or that tax increases decrease revenue?

As I'm no economist, I'll just leave this here for you to explain to me why it's wrong:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

Actually, that's a bit of a fool's mission.

How about we just play "Rock-em Sock-em Economists" and keep posting links to economists' articles that support opposing viewpoints?

None of us here is an economist (that I know of), but I've read just as many well-qualified articles that oppose allowing the expiration of the BTC's as I have those supporting it.

[AZhitman]

What evidence do you present to support the theory that tax cuts increase revenue? Or that tax increases decrease revenue?

Question is invalid anyway. Tax cuts occur, then 10 other things occur, THEN revenues increase (or costs decrease)... and vice versa.

I'm already paying nearly 40% of my income in taxes. F*** ANY politician who wants more than that.

[IBCoupe]

40%? Both State and Federal? Or just Federal?

EDIT: That's a stupid question. You can't possibly pay, even making Infinite dollars a year 35% or more to the Feds. You must be including State taxes.

[IBCoupe]

So, in looking at the 2010 Federal and Arizona State income taxes, I'm getting the feeling that you must be counting more than just income taxes in that 40% number.

Assuming you're filing as single (which means a higher percentage of your individual income), somebody making $75,000/yr in Arizona ends up paying $17,523 in taxes, both fed and state. That's 23.36%, and that means no deductions, no credits, no nothin'. It assumes that every dollar is taxable (which isn't usually the case).

Same assumptions for someone who's making $300,000/yr in Arizona means that they pay $98,498, or 32.83% of their taxable income. Interestingly enough, I decided to calculate what they'd pay were the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for those making over $250,000 - they end up paying just over $2500 more: a total of $101,061, or 33.69% of their taxable income.

[stebo0728]

Let me just say, today there seems to be a sudden push to rename these cuts "The Obama Middle Class Tax Relief" instead of the "Bush Tax Cuts". This strikes me as funny as hell because the term "Bush Tax Cuts" was used almost to the extent of an epithet. Now the same plan, or nearly since we may be forfeiting the top 2% cuts, are suddenly "The Obama Cuts" and glory abounds. But despite this partisan rhetoric, I really dont give even half a rats a** what we call the cuts, we can call them the Reid/Pelosi cuts if we want, as long as the cuts get reinstated. Just get the job done, call it whatever you like.

[IBCoupe]

I haven't noticed that, but there is a seperate effort to create new small business tax cuts and incentives, and new infrastructure projects. Maybe that's what's being talked about? I honestly haven't heard or read the renewal of President Bush's tax cuts rephrased int hat way.

Incidentally, I heard an interesting explanation of the purpose of the "infrastructure bank" that is maligned by small-government advocates. It isn't meant to be a centralization of money for centralization's sake, it's meant to be an entity with some liberty from Congress, so that the money isn't being pulled into every district, and is only used as necessary.

[AZhitman]

40%? Both State and Federal? Or just Federal?

EDIT: That's a stupid question. You can't possibly pay, even making Infinite dollars a year 35% or more to the Feds. You must be including State taxes.

State taxes, yes... let's also remember that after our income is taxed, its taxed again when we spend it. Start doing the math and its depressing.

So, when the libtards are fretting over poverty, it infuriates me... how about not taxing the s*** out of us and let us keep what we earned? I'm more likely.to employ more people if I can keep my income...

[srellim234]

AZ- you might be willing to do that but I seriously doubt the top 2% would. Those are people who already have made their money, have more than they can spend and are living off investments. They do not own or operate one company but rather are stockholders in diversified holdings and are done with "hand-on" operations of their companies with regards to things like payroll and hiring.. They are much more likely to continue to invest in companies that will show increased dividends and share value by slashing operating budgets. They are also more likely to invest in tangible assets like properties where they will derive more income from the lower tiers of taxpayers.

[IBCoupe]

I get the feeling you're arguing against taxes in general, not this increase in particular, Greg.

[AZhitman]

economists disagree.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/7 ... hypocrites

Unreliable source is unreliable. I'm actually surprised you cited such a blatantly biased and useless article.

Here ya go:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With income tax rates set to go up on Dec. 31, Congress is hotly debating what to do next. But most economists agree: Keep them where they are.

One option, to let the tax cuts passed during the Bush administration expire for only the richest 3% of taxpayers while renewing them for everyone else, is popular among Democrats and the choice of the Obama administration.

But a majority of a panel of leading economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said that the tax cuts should be renewed for everyone.

[heliochrome85]

link?

[AZhitman]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/ec ... /index.htm

[heliochrome85]

ill take a look. packing ATM.

on a side note, its astonishing how much crap one accumulates.