Has the Recession Arrived?

Iriemon · Apr 27, 2007

Stinger said:
Originally Posted by Stinger
but wouldn't you find it suicidal to raise taxes and causes further slowdown to a slowing economy, perhaps throwing into negative growth,

Kandahar said:
A premise with no evidence to support it.

Stinger said:
Supported by history.

Whose right? Does the evidence show lower taxes mean greater economic growth? Is Stinger's contention supported by history, as he claims?

Tax policy has changed dramatically over the past 5 decades, from top marginal rates as high as 91% in the 50s, to 70% in the 60s and 70s, to a low of 28% in the 80s. In 1993 the Dems raised the top rate to 39% to generate revenues to pay down the deficits (it worked). In 2000 Bush slashed the tax rate to make the economy grow faster (it didn't).

With these dramatic changes in tax policy, if Stinger were correct, we'd see much better economic growth in the 80s and 00s when taxes were lower, right? The 50s would totally blow, the 60s would suck, and the 90s would be at best medicore.

That is what we would see if, as Stinger says, his claim that tax cuts make the economy grow faster was supported by history.

Is Stinger right, does history support him?

Average annual real growth in the 50s = 4.15%.
Average annual real growth in the 60s = 4.44%.
Average annual real growth in the 70s = 3.26%.
Average annual real growth in the 80s = 3.07%
Average annual real growth in the 90s = 3.11%
Average annual real growth in the 00s = 2.49%
Average annual real growth during Reagan: 3.42%
Average annual real growth during Reagan & Bush1: 3.0%
Average annual real growth during Clinton: 3.71%
Average annual real growth during Bush2 (thru 2006): 2.56%

Data derived from BEA.gov.

Iriemon · Apr 27, 2007

Stinger said:
And throw a tax increase so the people and business on top of it and we have a Jimmy Carter economy again. So leave tax rates alone, don't you agree? Or do you support the Democrat plan to raise them. That is the simple question I ask you.

Jimmy Carter didn't raise taxes.

He inherited an inflationary economy from Ford. In 1979 Carter appointed Volker to break the inflationary cycle. Volker slammed the brakes on money supply, which sent interest rates skyrocketing, and caused a recession in 1979 -- but Volkers policies did stop inflation.

But yes, a tax increase say to 90s levels is FAR better for the country than running up the massive debt like the Republicans have been doing.

Kandahar · Apr 27, 2007

Stinger said:
The Democrats ARE proposing some MAJOR changes, why is the question so difficult?

No they're not. Raising the top rate from 35% to 39.6% is not a major change. A major change would be reverting to 1960s levels of taxation.

Stinger said:
I'm asking about YOUR opinions on tax policy not MINE. Yes we have a fundimental difference, I believe tax rates should be set on the principle of what is fair and how much we should limit government from taking our hard earned money, government should tax and spend only based on what is fair to us not by what they simply want and we cough it up.

I agree, we simply have different opinions on what is fair. But it sounds to me like YOU don't care what the state of the economy is (in terms of tax policy) either.

Ask yourself this: Suppose the tax rate was set at whatever rate you consider to be ideal. Now suppose the economy started to boom after a long recession. Would you support raising the tax rate? Now suppose that the economy started to sink after a long boom. Would you support raising the tax rate? If your answer to both questions is no, then you're a hypocrite and you don't care any more about the tax code's short-term effects on the economy than I do.

Stinger said:
Quite frankly I would rather see a complete overhaul of the system and not just playing with current rates. But the Dems want more than anything to raise taxes.

And the Republicans want more than anything to raise taxes for our grandchildren by spending all of their money now.

Stinger said:
But slap a tax increase on and you'll see the effects pretty quickly.

Not unless it's a major change. You'll barely notice any long-term change at all from a 35% to a 39% tax rate, let alone a short-term change.

Stinger said:
Look if you support taxes increase during a business slowdown we'll just disagree on it. I want to see which Democrat will run on that policy though.

John Edwards is the only one who says we'll need to raise taxes that I know of. At least he's honest. I dislike it when the other Democrats and Republicans running for President say that we'll be able to spend more than we have been, pay down the debt, and not raise taxes.

Stinger said:
Which is where the last round to tax cuts is taking, look at the revenues pouring in.

The revenues are just barely higher NOW than they were prior to Bush's tax cuts in 2001. And it's been six years, they should be a lot higher.

Stinger said:
Which is exactly what should be done, revenues are pouring in at tax increase which would slow down the economy would produce a net decrease in the long run.

There is absolutely NO evidence to support that. Any tax cut - unless the government is operating on the right side of the Laffer Curve as we were in the 1960s - will necessarily reduce federal revenue.

Stinger said:
We don't need to sacrifice,

Of course not. We never do, do we? "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask not what you can do for your country. Everything is under control." :roll:

Stinger said:
if spending is just kept to inflation growth and they leave taxes alone revenues will surpass spending.

If we assume an average inflation rate of 2% and an average economic growth rate of 4%, it will take nearly 12 years to balance the budget with our current deficit. Meanwhile, we will have increased the national debt more than in the rest of our nation's history combined.

Stinger said:
Supported by history.

Wrong. There has been exactly ONE TIME in our nation's history when cutting taxes increased federal revenue, and that was because we were operating on the right side of the Laffer Curve. We are now (and have been throughout most of American history) obviously on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

If you think that cutting taxes always increases federal revenue, then by your logic the ideal tax rate for maximizing federal revenue should be 0%. If the government didn't tax us at all, they should have plenty of money, right?

Stinger said:
And throw a tax increase so the people and business on top of it and we have a Jimmy Carter economy again. So leave tax rates alone, don't you agree? Or do you support the Democrat plan to raise them. That is the simple question I ask you.

Nobody's asking to raise the top income tax rates to 70% (the top rate in the late 1970s). The fact that you'd compare a relatively minor tax increase to 39.6% for the purpose of balancing the budget, to a punitive tax rate of 70%, is ridiculous.

Stinger said:
I agree, this slight slowdown is a natural occurrence when we have had such continued growth and there aren't many workers available. So do you greet that with a massive tax increase?

This would actually be a smaller tax increase relative to GDP than the Clinton tax increase or the Bush Sr tax increase. And neither of those devastated the economy.

Iriemon · Apr 27, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
[A tax increase would] drastically reducing federal revenues

Kandahar:
A premise with overwhelming evidence AGAINST it.

Stinger said:
Supported by history.

Here we see Stinger making another claim about taxes -- this time that a tax increase would "drastically" reduce federal revenues. Again, Stinger claims this is "supported by history." Is Stinger right about this one?

In 1993, the Democrats passed a tax increase to address the huge deficits Clinton inherited from the Reagan/Bush1 administrations. The top rate was increased to 39.6%, which represented about a 40% increase over the 28% rate in passed when Reagan was president (Bush1 increased the top rate to 31% in 1991).

Surely, if Stinger is right on this one, history will show that federal revenues were "drastically" reduced after that large tax increase:

Year - Total revnues (source: CBO.gov)

1993 1154.4
1994 1258.6
1995 1351.8
1996 1453.1
1997 1579.3
1998 1721.8
1999 1827.5
2000 2025.2

Ooops! No "drastic" reduction there! Revenues actually *increased* 75% in just 7 years.

Maybe that was because the economy was growing so well in the 90s, not because of the tax increase?

Year - Actual GDP (BEA.gov]

1993 6657.4
1994 7072.2
1995 7397.7
1996 7816.9
1997 8304.3
1998 8747.0
1999 9268.4
2000 9817.0

The economy did grow well, 47% over 7 years. But after the tax increase, revenues grew far faster than the economy.

So much for history supporting Stinger's claims that a tax increase will make revenues fall drastically.

But maybe the inverse is true -- a tax cuts will make revenues grow drastically?

2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3
2004 1880.1
2005 2153.9
2006 2406.7

Oops! We see that after the tax cuts in 2001-03, revenues didn't increase, but were reduced drastically. (Maybe Stinger just got tax increases confused with tax decreases as to what history supports). With no more tax cuts after 2004, revenues finally rebounded, and overall have grown 19% after 6 years.

If revenues grow 55% this year, revenues after the tax cut will do as well as they did in the 90s after the tax increase.

But maybe it was because the economy was not so hot in the 00s?

Year - actual GDP

2000 9817.0
2001 10128.0
2002 10469.6
2003 10960.8
2004 11712.5
2005 12,455.8
2006 13,244.6

About a 35% increase over 6 years. Revenue have grown only about half as much as the economy.

So much for Stinger's assertion about history supporting his claim, once again.

How could Stinger have been so wrong about what history supports? Maybe he didn't know any of this.

Sure he did. He's seen it all at least once, and probably several times before.

But history supports the proposition that facts won't deter the misrepresentations of an ideologue.

Sergeant Stinger1 · Apr 27, 2007

oldreliable67 said:
This past Friday's solid report of the March labor conditions showed more Americans working more hours at higher wages than ever before. Unemployment fell to 4.4%, instead of rising as many expected. The average hourly wage rose to $17.22. The strong jobs report, along with the January-February surge in spending, personal income and core inflation points to continued growth, albeit modest, and quite possibly an inflation problem -- not recession and interest-rate cuts.

________
Not that I do not trust your figures but I would like to find out if the average wage is actually $17.22 per hour and what if any catagory of workers wages are left out or included. I have been trying to get a correct answer for some time now.
Thanks.

Stinger · Apr 28, 2007

Kandahar said:
No they're not. Raising the top rate from 35% to 39.6% is not a major change. A major change would be reverting to 1960s levels of taxation.

It's a 13% tax increase just on income. And remember that is the same percentage as the HUGE tax CUT Bush gave to the rich. If it was HUGE when it was a CUT it is HUGE when it is an increase.

But again ANY tax increase when we are going into recession as you predict has a negative effect on the economy, and you support such a measure. Why?

I agree, we simply have different opinions on what is fair.

OK what percentage of a persons income should the government be allowed to take?

But it sounds to me like YOU don't care what the state of the economy is (in terms of tax policy) either.

How you get that impression is beyond me.

Ask yourself this: Suppose the tax rate was set at whatever rate you consider to be ideal. Now suppose the economy started to boom after a long recession. Would you support raising the tax rate?

No why would I? Unless there was a national emergency of something.

Now suppose that the economy started to sink after a long boom. Would you support raising the tax rate?

If they were set fairly to begin with, then a short term tax cut could be helpful.

If your answer to both questions is no, then you're a hypocrite and you don't care any more about the tax code's short-term effects on the economy than I do.

Well I didn't. But the fact is I don't support the current tax system AT ALL. One reason is BECAUSE the politians believe they can control the economy and our behaviors through. Get rid of it and go to a flat tax or a consumption tax and than rather than the endless debates over tax breaks, the corruption that can accompany that and the drag on the economy and the politicans have to worry more about the things that actually help the economy.

And the Republicans want more than anything to raise taxes for our grandchildren by spending all of their money now.

False, they want to grow revenues so they don't have to pay as much tax as we do now. That is clear in their policy. It's the Dems who want to raise taxes and make it more difficult for our children to get ahead.

Not unless it's a major change.

It's just as major a change as when they were cut.

You'll barely notice any long-term change at all from a 35% to a 39% tax rate, let alone a short-term change.

And I have no reason to believe the Democrats will stop at 39%.

John Edwards is the only one who says we'll need to raise taxes that I know of.

The entire Democrat side of the aisle in the congress is drolling to do so.

At least he's honest. I dislike it when the other Democrats and Republicans running for President say that we'll be able to spend more than we have been, pay down the debt, and not raise taxes.

Why? It's true. We won't be able to INCREASE spending at the rates it has been increased, but then it needs to be slowed down.

The revenues are just barely higher NOW than they were prior to Bush's tax cuts in 2001. And it's been six years, they should be a lot higher.

No they are quite a bit higher now AND at lower tax rates, and with the hits the economy took that is quite good. The single day tax revenue record was just smashed, the deficit predictions are all being cut drastically.

There is absolutely NO evidence to support that. Any tax cut - unless the government is operating on the right side of the Laffer Curve as we were in the 1960s - will necessarily reduce federal revenue.

We have history to look at, but then as I said I support a total reform of the tax system to take even more burden off the eocnomy.

If we assume an average inflation rate of 2% and an average economic growth rate of 4%, it will take nearly 12 years to balance the budget with our current deficit.

Even the high paid economist in DC have not been able to accurately make such predictions, I doubt you are more capable than they are, the deficit is falling much faster than they ever dreamed.

Wrong. There has been exactly ONE TIME in our nation's history when cutting taxes increased federal revenue, and that was because we were operating on the right side of the Laffer Curve. We are now (and have been throughout most of American history) obviously on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

Kennedy, Reagan, Bush.

If you think that cutting taxes always increases federal revenue,

Where did I say that? Obviously cutting them to ZERO will not increase federal revenues.

What I have said and what you are in utter denial about is that increasing taxes when we are on the verge of a recession is harmful to the economy and would be the worst thing the Democrats could do. You have now tried to hijack that into a macro discussion of taxes and tax policy.

Nobody's asking to raise the top income tax rates to 70% (the top rate in the late 1970s).

They at this point want a 13% tax increase, on the verge of, if we accept your assertion, a recession. I want to see the Dems run on that platform.

The fact that you'd compare a relatively minor tax increase to 39.6% for the purpose of balancing the budget, to a punitive tax rate of 70%, is ridiculous.

So you are stipulating that the Dems have been lying for 6 years when they claim Bush gave the rich a HUGE tax cut?

This would actually be a smaller tax increase relative to GDP than the Clinton tax increase or the Bush Sr tax increase.

They both harmed economic growth. Clinton's wasn't so bad because we were already out of the recession and had a growing economy, his tax increase however delayed the full recovery and cost the taxpayers and the government revenue it would have gained had he just left tax rates alone.

But again this is premised on YOUR claim we are going into a recession, and that you believe the best course of action would be to raise taxes. Can you cite any economist who agrees with you?

Kandahar · Apr 28, 2007

Stinger said:
It's a 13% tax increase just on income. And remember that is the same percentage as the HUGE tax CUT Bush gave to the rich. If it was HUGE when it was a CUT it is HUGE when it is an increase.

Who said it was a huge tax cut? Not me. It was relatively minor in the effect that it had on the lives of the people who received it, and in its effects (if any) on the economy. The only way it was huge was in terms of the huge deficit it created.

Stinger said:
But again ANY tax increase when we are going into recession as you predict has a negative effect on the economy, and you support such a measure. Why?

Maybe if you just repeat that assertion enough times without offering any substantiation, I'll forget that you didn't prove it and just accept it as true. Or not. :roll:

Stinger said:
OK what percentage of a persons income should the government be allowed to take?

39.6% to balance the budget seems reasonable to me. Maybe a little more if we want universal health care; that might increase the top rate to ~45%, which is slightly higher than I would like, but health care seems like one of the few industries that would be more efficiently run with MORE government control.

Stinger said:
How you get that impression is beyond me.

No why would I? Unless there was a national emergency of something.

If they were set fairly to begin with, then a short term tax cut could be helpful.

So even if the tax rate was set at your ideal rate, you wouldn't support raising taxes when the economy was good. You wouldn't support raising taxes when the economy was bad. In other words, you don't care what the current state of the economy is in terms of tax policy any more than I do.

Stinger said:
Well I didn't. But the fact is I don't support the current tax system AT ALL. One reason is BECAUSE the politians believe they can control the economy and our behaviors through.

I agree, the tax code has been proven to be an ineffective means of controlling people's behavior. Most of the deductions should be eliminated, and the government should only allow for deductions on things that the government would otherwise be paying for themselves: Health care, education, etc. And maybe a standard tax credit per child, although even that is debatable.

Stinger said:
Get rid of it and go to a flat tax or a consumption tax and than rather than the endless debates over tax breaks, the corruption that can accompany that and the drag on the economy and the politicans have to worry more about the things that actually help the economy.

How would that end the debate? If we had a flat tax or a sales tax, you'd still be bitching that it was too high.

Stinger said:
False, they want to grow revenues so they don't have to pay as much tax as we do now. That is clear in their policy. It's the Dems who want to raise taxes and make it more difficult for our children to get ahead.

The concept of paying for things is totally alien to you, isn't it? You live in a delusional world. We don't have to make any sacrifices at all, and everything will just magically get better on its own. :roll:

You're a demagogue, and like most demagogues, you're a utopian. Sorry, but that isn't the way the world actually works. Every decision has tradeoffs.

Stinger said:
It's just as major a change as when they were cut.

Which wasn't really that major, at least in terms of the economy.

Stinger said:
And I have no reason to believe the Democrats will stop at 39%.

That should be sufficient to balance the budget. It may have to go slightly higher, as I mentioned above, if they propose other programs like universal health care. Although these costs can be partially offset by other things, such as withdrawing from Iraq and reforming our education system so that it's more efficient with less money.

Stinger said:
No they are quite a bit higher now AND at lower tax rates, and with the hits the economy took that is quite good. The single day tax revenue record was just smashed,

Of course. The economy usually grows. The single day tax revenue record SHOULD be smashed just about every year, unless we're in a recession, because the economy is bigger in any given year than it was in the previous year.

Stinger said:
the deficit predictions are all being cut drastically.

Because the economy has done quite well in the last couple years. There's no guarantee that that will continue though.

Stinger said:
We have history to look at, but then as I said I support a total reform of the tax system to take even more burden off the eocnomy.

You don't have history to look at. You have exactly one example that supposedly supports your argument, and I've already explained why it is different than the current situation.

Stinger said:
Even the high paid economist in DC have not been able to accurately make such predictions, I doubt you are more capable than they are, the deficit is falling much faster than they ever dreamed.

I'm not saying I can accurately predict the state of the economy in any given year (the thing about a recession coming is just my opinion). However, long-term economic forecasts can be more accurate. I can base a 12-year projection of inflation rates and economic growth rates on the average rate in the past. It might not be accurate, but it's as good a measure as any. It's certainly better than using the most optimistic numbers possible to make dishonest claims, as you are fond of doing.

Stinger said:
Kennedy, Reagan, Bush.

Kennedy's tax cut was the only one of those three that increased revenue. And I've already explained why.

Stinger said:
Where did I say that? Obviously cutting them to ZERO will not increase federal revenues.

Then you agree that there is some point between a tax rate of 0% and 100% where tax revenue will be maximized. That's called the Laffer Curve. Many economists have estimated that that point lies at a tax rate of 60-70%, although it isn't static. Since our tax rate is usually lower than that (but wasn't during the 1960s), tax cuts will lower revenue and tax hikes will raise revenue. That isn't to say that maximizing tax revenue should be the goal of our tax policy; just that you can't expect to do so by cutting taxes.

Stinger said:
What I have said and what you are in utter denial about is that increasing taxes when we are on the verge of a recession is harmful to the economy

Then prove this argument. Show some evidence that a mild tax hike will harm the economy.

Stinger said:
and would be the worst thing the Democrats could do. You have now tried to hijack that into a macro discussion of taxes and tax policy.

Umm
Certainly a macro discussion of taxes and tax policy is relevant to a discussion of a specific tax policy. Regardless, I'm not trying to "hijack" anything, as the topic has already moved into the realm of taxation and away from the original topic.

Stinger said:
They at this point want a 13% tax increase, on the verge of, if we accept your assertion, a recession. I want to see the Dems run on that platform.

So do I, actually. It would be nice if more of them would be honest with the American people and admit that we'll need to raise taxes because Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies are unsustainable. The Republicans should do so too.

Stinger said:
So you are stipulating that the Dems have been lying for 6 years when they claim Bush gave the rich a HUGE tax cut?

See above. It certainly wasn't huge in terms of the effects it had on the people who received them.

Stinger said:
They both harmed economic growth. Clinton's wasn't so bad because we were already out of the recession and had a growing economy, his tax increase however delayed the full recovery and cost the taxpayers and the government revenue it would have gained had he just left tax rates alone.

If it is such a no-brainer that cutting taxes raises tax revenue, as you claim, then why don't all politicians run on that platform? The conservatives would get their low taxes, the liberals would get their high tax revenue, and everyone would be happy. Right?

Stinger said:
But again this is premised on YOUR claim we are going into a recession, and that you believe the best course of action would be to raise taxes. Can you cite any economist who agrees with you?

Like I said, it's only my speculation that we're entering a recession. The short-term state of the economy is very difficult to predict. Very few people are able to consistently beat the market, and those who do are just lucky.

Stinger · May 5, 2007

Kandahar said:
Who said it was a huge tax cut?

Certainly every Democrat/Liberal out there. So huge it was obscene to them.

Not me. It was relatively minor in the effect that it had on the lives of the people who received it, and in its effects (if any) on the economy.

When in fact in benefited everyone across the board taking millions off the income tax rolls altogether and shifting more of the tax burden on the wealthiest who paid more in taxes after the cut. So what's your beef?

The only way it was huge was in terms of the huge deficit it created.

It was huger in preventing the deeper one that would have resulted without it. And the revenues we are seeing rolling now are even hugier than they would have been with the slower economy which would have resulted from not cutting them. In fact they couldn't have come at a better time.

Maybe if you just repeat that assertion......

:rofl no more or less than you repeat yours.

39.6% to balance the budget seems reasonable to me.

Taking longer to do it and requiring the workers to lose in the slowing of the economy that would result, why is that reasonable. Slow the growth of spending and keep allowing the economy to boom as it is now giving us at or above record revenue growth. Why would you want to slow that down?

Maybe a little more if we want universal health care;

And the money for that will come from????????

that might increase the top rate to ~45%,

Just in federal income tax. How much of a persons income should the government in total be allowed to take?

which is slightly higher than I would like, but health care seems like one of the few industries that would be more efficiently run with MORE government control.

As government has demonstrated in what other areas? What are the premises that lead you to that conclusion?

So even if the tax rate was set at your ideal rate, you wouldn't support raising taxes when the economy was good.

Meaning revenues are outpacing inflation and GDP? Why would I? If government is running a surplus then it is taking too much from the taxpayer and tax rates should be cut. I don't believe in the premise that government should just get X% of the GDP and then they just spend it on what they want to spend it on.

You wouldn't support raising taxes when the economy was bad. In other words, you don't care what the current state of the economy is in terms of tax policy any more than I do.

I believe government should take the least amount of the hard earned income of the citizens it takes to fund the government. I believe that the best way to grow revenues for the government is to grow the economy not grow the tax rate. I'd like to see an economy where the government only has to take 1% of the darned GDP. And if we continue to grow the economy faster than the government that is not an impossible dream, highly unlikely but THAT is how government taxation should be judged.

I agree, the tax code has been proven to be an ineffective means of controlling people's behavior.

Actually it's not, monetary policy can high strong influence on people and corporations. And influence I'd like out of the hands of government. A flat tax or a consumption tax gets rid of the need for a lot of the lobbying that goes on.

Most of the deductions should be eliminated,........

Just get rid of all of them, go flat or NST and get rid of all the cost of the present system and the political influence it peddles. Then the more the economy grows the more those rates can be lowered.

How would that end the debate? If we had a flat tax or a sales tax, you'd still be bitching that it was too high.

But we still get the revenue growth and lower compliance and enforcement cost so I less to gripe about don't I.

The concept of paying for things is totally alien to you, isn't it?

Not at all, as long as it's governments business to be paying for them. My concept here has to do with the best way to get the money for the limited things government should be doing and just because the people are growing the economy at a rate government takes in more money that it should find a way to spend it.

You live in a delusional world.

Oh spare me your derogatory comments, argue the issue.

You're a demagogue.........

screw off :tomato:

Iriemon · May 7, 2007

Stinger said:
When in fact in benefited everyone across the board taking millions off the income tax rolls altogether and shifting more of the tax burden on the wealthiest who paid more in taxes after the cut. So what's your beef?

Another misrepresentation by Stinger. It may be true that the wealthier are paying as much of federal *income* taxes as before, federal income taxes as a proportion of all taxes is much less than it was before the tax cuts.

In 2000, income tax revenues represented 50% of all federal revenues. By 2006 that number had dropped to 43%. In other words, income tax revenues provides a much smaller sources of overall revenues. Thus, while the wealthier *may* be paying the same proportion of income tax revenues, that piece is a much smaller piece of the whole pie.

On the other hand, SS taxes, which represent taxes the working folk pay (since it is tapped at about $95k in income, represents a bigger piece of the pie. SS taxes counted for 32% of all revenue in 2000, but had climbed to 37% last year.

Meaning revenues are outpacing inflation and GDP? Why would I? If government is running a surplus then it is taking too much from the taxpayer and tax rates should be cut. I don't believe in the premise that government should just get X% of the GDP and then they just spend it on what they want to spend it on.

A continuing misrepresentation by Stinger. As shown by a previous post, since Bush took office revenues have grown by about half of GDP growth.

I believe government should take the least amount of the hard earned income of the citizens it takes to fund the government. I believe that the best way to grow revenues for the government is to grow the economy not grow the tax rate. ...

Most economist question whether running up huge debt with tax cuts is the best way to grow the economy. We certainly have not seen any extraordinary growth this Bush slashed taxes earlier this decade; but we have seen extraordinary growth in debt and interest expense.

Actually it's not, monetary policy can high strong influence on people and corporations. And influence I'd like out of the hands of government. A flat tax or a consumption tax gets rid of the need for a lot of the lobbying that goes on.

Maybe Stinger is just being sloppy with his terms here; but monetary policy has nothing to do with taxes -- it has to do with the supply of currency, and is controlled by the Fed.

Kandahar · May 7, 2007

Stinger said:
Certainly every Democrat/Liberal out there. So huge it was obscene to them.

Well, certainly I am not "every Democrat/Liberal out there." It was only obscene in the sense that it ran up an enormous deficit. The actual tax cut was nothing special.

Stinger said:
When in fact in benefited everyone across the board taking millions off the income tax rolls altogether and shifting more of the tax burden on the wealthiest who paid more in taxes after the cut. So what's your beef?

Since I don't believe that the purpose of graduated taxation is to punish the wealthy, but to collect revenue from the most able-to-pay source, I don't see what this little tidbit has to do with anything. I don't care if the wealthy paid more than they paid before, as that is only a secondary concern. The primary concern is if we're collecting enough taxes to pay for all of the government that our elected representatives voted to give us.

Stinger said:
It was huger in preventing the deeper one that would have resulted without it. And the revenues we are seeing rolling now are even hugier than they would have been with the slower economy which would have resulted from not cutting them. In fact they couldn't have come at a better time.

You keep repeating this dogma, yet so far you have offered absolutely NO evidence to support it.

Stinger said:
Taking longer to do it and requiring the workers to lose in the slowing of the economy that would result, why is that reasonable. Slow the growth of spending and keep allowing the economy to boom as it is now giving us at or above record revenue growth. Why would you want to slow that down?

Please support your assertion that a mild tax increase will cripple the economy, prolong recessions, and slow booms.

Stinger said:
And the money for that will come from????????

That's another subject entirely.

Stinger said:
Just in federal income tax. How much of a persons income should the government in total be allowed to take?

I don't think there needs to be a set percentage, as circumstances change from one year to another, and economics is not as simplistic as you like to make it out to be.

Stinger said:
As government has demonstrated in what other areas? What are the premises that lead you to that conclusion?

You can start another thread on that subject if you like.

Stinger said:
Meaning revenues are outpacing inflation and GDP?

If that's true, then taxes are being increased somewhere.

Stinger said:
Why would I? If government is running a surplus then it is taking too much from the taxpayer and tax rates should be cut.

No, it should be used to pay down the national debt. You seem to have little or no problem with enormous deficits, but little desire to ever pay them down. Do you use your credit cards in the same fashion?

Stinger said:
I believe government should take the least amount of the hard earned income of the citizens it takes to fund the government.

And I doubt you'll find anyone who disagrees. The bolded part is the key bit of information that you tend to gloss over.

Stinger said:
I believe that the best way to grow revenues for the government is to grow the economy not grow the tax rate.

We can do both. But we can't just allow an enormous deficit to continue in the hopes that the economy will grow faster than the spending, we need to pay for our expenses NOW instead of just putting them on the credit card.

Stinger said:
I'd like to see an economy where the government only has to take 1% of the darned GDP. And if we continue to grow the economy faster than the government that is not an impossible dream, highly unlikely but THAT is how government taxation should be judged.

Of course it is an impossible dream. As long as we need a military, we're damn sure going to have to spend more than 1% of GDP on it.

Stinger said:
Actually it's not, monetary policy can high strong influence on people and corporations.

Monetary policy, yes. Tax/fiscal policy, not so much.

Stinger said:
And influence I'd like out of the hands of government. A flat tax or a consumption tax gets rid of the need for a lot of the lobbying that goes on.

Lobbying is not a serious problem in the United States. The media just treats it as though it is.

Stinger said:
Just get rid of all of them, go flat or NST and get rid of all the cost of the present system and the political influence it peddles. Then the more the economy grows the more those rates can be lowered.

We can get rid of the costs in a way that DOESN'T cause a huge deficit:

- A reasonable, graduated tax system.
- A balanced budget amendment to not spend more than 98-99% of the tax revenue we collect.
- Elimination of most deductions, except for those that the government sometimes provides for people (education/medical) because that will limit the costs of government programs.

Stinger said:
But we still get the revenue growth and lower compliance and enforcement cost so I less to gripe about don't I.

You'd still complain about the tax rate.

Stinger said:
Not at all, as long as it's governments business to be paying for them. My concept here has to do with the best way to get the money for the limited things government should be doing and just because the people are growing the economy at a rate government takes in more money that it should find a way to spend it.

You don't believe that the government has the responsibility to correct market failures? Are you suggesting the military/police/courts-only government favored by the anarcho-capitalist nuts?

Stinger · May 7, 2007

Kandahar said:
Well, certainly I am not "every Democrat/Liberal out there." It was only obscene in the sense that it ran up an enormous deficit. The actual tax cut was nothing special.

You would have preferred higher rates AND a higher deficit which would have resulted. Define a "special" tax cut.

Since I don't believe that the purpose of graduated taxation is to punish the wealthy,

I don't either, which is why I prefer lower rates which result in higher economic activity and everyone makes more money and then pays more in actual revenues. Chasing rates is like chasing the altimeter.

but to collect revenue from the most able-to-pay source,

With the least amount of impact on the economy and allowing the people who create and earn it keep as much of it as possible in my view.

I don't care if the wealthy paid more than they paid before, as that is only a secondary concern.

Ahhh you just want a high rate so it LOOKS like they are getting made to pay more.

The primary concern is if we're collecting enough taxes to pay for all of the government that our elected representatives voted to give us.

The primary concern is if we are taking so much money out of the economy that we strangle revenue growth or take more from the hard working citizens than is absolutely necessary. See I think we have more right to our labor than the government does.

You keep repeating this dogma, yet so far you have offered absolutely NO evidence to support it.

I have present as much as you have haven't I?

Please support your assertion that a mild tax increase will cripple the economy, prolong recessions, and slow booms.

Post where a made an assertion that a mild recession would cripple the economy, prolong recessions, am I to assume you don't believe prolonged mild recessions are harmful to our pocketbooks?

Quote:
Maybe a little more if we want universal health care;

Originally Posted by Stinger
And the money for that will come from????????

That's another subject entirely.

No it's about revenues just as we are discussing. You said above we should be more worried about providing government the revenues needed to supply the things our representatives vote for. So where will the money for universal health care come from? Think you might top the Laffer curve with that one?

Originally Posted by Stinger
Just in federal income tax. How much of a persons income should the government in total be allowed to take?

I don't think there needs to be a set percentage, as circumstances change from one year to another, and economics is not as simplistic as you like to make it out to be.

:rofl what a transparent dodge. That's the problem you have when you approach taxation from your position, pretty soon you have to start taxing at punitive rates, which you don't want to have to admit to. Give me the maximum under non-emergency circumstances, what is the maximum a person should have to turn over to government in total?

Quote:
which is slightly higher than I would like, but health care seems like one of the few industries that would be more efficiently run with MORE government control.

Originally Posted by Stinger
As government has demonstrated in what other areas? What are the premises that lead you to that conclusion?

You can start another thread on that subject if you like.

Another white flag I see. You have a habit of stating a premise or and example you think supports your position and then when I offer my response your only comeback is "well that's another thread" Well YOU brought it up.

If that's true, then taxes are being increased somewhere.

No it means there is a lot of business activity and we are restraining spending.

No, it should be used to pay down the national debt.

It will be paid down when due, are you putting your treasury bonds up?

You seem to have little or no problem with enormous deficits,

Enormous by what measure? Versus GDP? Versus Revenues?

You seem to have a problem with our increasing revenues due to lower taxes bringing them down, instead wanting higher rates just to have higher rates.

Do you use your credit cards in the same fashion?

I use credit in a responsible manner. For instance when I made little money, I didn't take on very much debt, the more I made the more debt I could manage. Now that I have no debt I don't just hold a family session and we vote where to spend it, we save it for later years, but then it is MY wealth, I am not government using OTHER peoples wealth.

And I doubt you'll find anyone who disagrees. The bolded part is the key bit of information that you tend to gloss over.

How has this glossiness manifested itself?

We can do both. But we can't just allow an enormous deficit to continue in the hopes that the economy will grow faster than the spending,

Which is why we are growing our way out it, as we have always eliminated debt and deficits.

we need to pay for our expenses NOW instead of just putting them on the credit card.

And the best way to do that is to grow the economy so revenues increase.

Of course it is an impossible dream. As long as we need a military, we're damn sure going to have to spend more than 1% of GDP on it.

Depends on how fast we grow the economy doesn't it, and how big it gets. Government doesn't have to grow with GDP.

Monetary policy, yes. Tax/fiscal policy, not so much.

And the former is very much affected by the latter, along with the latter affecting overall economic policy and outcome which affects the former. They don't operate in a vacuum.

Lobbying is not a serious problem in the United States. The media just treats it as though it is.

Call it a problem or something else, the fact is huge sums of money are given out in DC to affect tax policy, and tax breaks. It is better if it doesn't.

We can get rid of the costs in a way that DOESN'T cause a huge deficit:

- A reasonable, graduated tax system.

The one now isn't reasonable" What would make it more reasonable?

- A balanced budget amendment to not spend more than 98-99% of the tax revenue we collect.

Unless what?

- Elimination of most deductions, except for those that the government sometimes provides for people (education/medical) because that will limit the costs of government programs.

Just go to a flat tax or NST and get rid of having to deal with any of them and keeping government out of my business. You know the right to privacy thing.

Originally Posted by Stinger
But we still get the revenue growth and lower compliance and enforcement cost so I less to gripe about don't I.

You'd still complain about the tax rate.

No more than you.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Not at all, as long as it's governments business to be paying for them. My concept here has to do with the best way to get the money for the limited things government should be doing and just because the people are growing the economy at a rate government takes in more money that it should find a way to spend it.

You don't believe that the government has the responsibility to correct market failures?

Where in the constitution is the government suppose to correct "market failures"? And what does that have to do with what I said?

Are you suggesting the military/police/courts-only government favored by the anarcho-capitalist nuts?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

alphieb · May 8, 2007

Sometimes it's hard to tell if a recession has occured until after it is over.

Has the Recession Arrived?

Iriemon

Iriemon

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Iriemon

Sergeant Stinger1

Stinger

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Stinger

Iriemon

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Stinger

alphieb