Obama to call for new tax increases in State of the Union address

Napoleon · Feb 2, 2015

Conservative said:
Results matter and results are something you don't seem to understand. How old were you during the Reagan term? Do you always believe what you are told by the left? There were no tax hikes, the tax laws were enforced, rates were cut, elimination of deductions returned the law to previous levels and apparently didn't hurt Reagan at all as indicated by the 1984 election results. Economic expansion occurred, jobs were created, America's standard in the world regained so yes, it was a liberal nightmare. Not sure what you are looking at but I prefer Treasury numbers, feel free to look them up. I lived it and worked it, the best years of my life.

None of that is what I asked you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You claimed that the increase in revenue is solely attributable to employment figures. So, please, explain to me how a net job creation of 1 million in 1981 yielded $41.8 billion more in income tax revenue than the year prior. Do you honestly expect me to believe that 1 million new workers paid $41,800 in income taxes each and when the median household income was only $17,743? :shock: You can argue that those new workers contributed to an increase in income tax revenue but the vast majority of that increase came about some other way.

Conservative · Feb 2, 2015

Napoleon said:
None of that is what I asked you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You claimed that the increase in revenue is solely attributable to employment figures. So, please, explain to me how a net job creation of 1 million in 1981 yielded $41.8 billion more in income tax revenue than the year prior. Do you honestly expect me to believe that 1 million new workers paid $41,800 in income taxes each and when the median household income was only $17,743? :shock: You can argue that those new workers contributed to an increase in income tax revenue but the vast majority of that increase came about some other way.

At this point I really don't care what you think, I know what happened. I lived it, worked it, and prospered during that period of time as did millions which is why Reagan won the largest landslide victory in modern history. I am not going to waste any more time trying to convince you the value of you keeping more of what you earn when you get your first job. Keep promoting bigger govt, more entitlement spending and programs, Obamanomics, higher taxes on the producers. Tell what liberals are going to do when they run out of rich people to tax?

Napoleon · Feb 2, 2015

Conservative said:
At this point I really don't care what you think, I know what happened. I lived it, worked it, and prospered during that period of time as did millions which is why Reagan won the largest landslide victory in modern history. I am not going to waste any more time trying to convince you the value of you keeping more of what you earn when you get your first job. Keep promoting bigger govt, more entitlement spending and programs, Obamanomics, higher taxes on the producers. Tell what liberals are going to do when they run out of rich people to tax?

So basically you're withering before the actual facts and figures. Got it. I don't care what you think either, but I do care that you make specious arguments and talk down to people when you have nothing to back up your position but your personal anecdotes and fading recollections of the 1980s, which are contrary to the actual data as I've just demonstrated.

Conservative · Feb 2, 2015

Napoleon said:
So basically you're withering before the actual facts and figures. Got it.

Yep, got it, doubling GDP, 17 million jobs, tax cuts for all taxpayers, 62% increase in FIT

Educate yourself and stop buying the media spin. In order to understand the Reagan years you first need to understand what he inherited and the economic conditions at the time including the misery index. What you want to ignore is how Reaganomics impacted the middle and lower classes which helped create the largest landslide election victory in modern history. All those stupid people voting their pocketbooks

The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf

Napoleon · Feb 2, 2015

Conservative said:
Yep, got it, doubling GDP, 17 million jobs, tax cuts for all taxpayers, 62% increase in FIT

Educate yourself and stop buying the media spin. In order to understand the Reagan years you first need to understand what he inherited and the economic conditions at the time including the misery index. What you want to ignore is how Reaganomics impacted the middle and lower classes which helped create the largest landslide election victory in modern history. All those stupid people voting their pocketbooks

The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf

None of which is what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not job creation was primarily responsible for the increase in income tax revenue. It was a contributing factor but it clearly was not the primary source as I demonstrated.

Conservative · Feb 2, 2015

Napoleon said:
None of which is what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not job creation was primarily responsible for the increase in income tax revenue. It was a contributing factor but it clearly was not the primary source as I demonstrated.

17 million new taxpayers, higher personal income due to a doubling of GDP equaled higher taxes so not sure what you want but the reality is listed in the comparisons I posted and the reality of the election results.

Napoleon · Feb 2, 2015

Conservative said:
17 million new taxpayers, higher personal income due to a doubling of GDP equaled higher taxes so not sure what you want but the reality is listed in the comparisons I posted and the reality of the election results.

How do the following facts jive with your claim that job grown was solely or primarily responsible for increases in income tax receipts:

1981

FIT: +$41.8 billion
EM: +1 million jobs

1982

FIT: +$11.8 billion
EM: - 871,000 jobs

1983

FIT: - $8.8 billion
EM: + 130,800 jobs

Seems to me they don't and you're just throwing stuff out there in the hope that people don't dig too deeply into the numbers. :naughty

Conservative · Feb 2, 2015

Napoleon said:
How do the following facts jive with your claim that job grown was solely or primarily responsible for increases in income tax receipts:

1981

FIT: +$41.8 billion
EM: +1 million jobs

1982

FIT: +$11.8 billion
EM: - 871,000 jobs

1983

FIT: - $8.8 billion
EM: + 130,800 jobs

Seems to me they don't and you're just throwing stuff out there in the hope that people don't dig too deeply into the numbers. :naughty

Right, BLS got it wrong

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2014

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830

Recession dates in bold

Napoleon · Feb 2, 2015

Conservative said:
Right, BLS got it wrong

Not unless they falsified their own data during the Reagan years. Why are you just looking at monthly figures anyway? If you're going to compare employment figures with income tax receipts then they have to be annualized..which is what the data I noted is in a year-over-year comparison using the BLS data I just linked to.

Conservative said:
Recession dates in bold

And? Given your position on the source of the increase in revenue you still have to explain how an $11.8 billion increase happened when there was a net job loss of 871,000 and a $8.8 billion decrease happened when there was a net job increase of 130,800. Not to mention those pesky figures relating to '81. Clearly your position is mistaken and the increases were not due solely or primarily to an increase in employment.

washunut · Feb 2, 2015

imagep said:
It is, isn't it. I assume it's because we have a need to compare presidents against other presidents to establish a baseline.

Like the 3.9 trillion budget that Obama may propose in the next week or so. That number means nothing, without comparing it to something else.

A 3.9 million dollar budget might sound outrageously high, unless someone realized that we haven't had a budget that low since George Washington's days.

These discussions often end up also involving most recent presidents.

At least for me looking at some key elements is more important than following presidents as a baseline. For example, in 2008/9 we were fighting two wars that with an aggregate cost of about 150-200 billion; in 2015/16 we will be essentially out of both with some relatively small costs fighting ISIS. Interest costs where rates were about 5% under Bush are now less than 2%, with the Fed kicking about the money they collect on the expanded balance sheet. Social Security has to be up because of a) inflation increases and b) the aging of our population.

So saying Bush spent X and Obama wants to spend Y as out only baseline, at least to be is not very valuable.

Conservative · Feb 3, 2015

Napoleon said:
Not unless they falsified their own data during the Reagan years. Why are you just looking at monthly figures anyway? If you're going to compare employment figures with income tax receipts then they have to be annualized..which is what the data I noted is in a year-over-year comparison using the BLS data I just linked to.

And? Given your position on the source of the increase in revenue you still have to explain how an $11.8 billion increase happened when there was a net job loss of 871,000 and a $8.8 billion decrease happened when there was a net job increase of 130,800. Not to mention those pesky figures relating to '81. Clearly your position is mistaken and the increases were not due solely or primarily to an increase in employment.

No data was falsified, just different tables used. I used the table that is used to post the official unemployment rate and that table shows the actual labor force as well as the total employment. The official unemployment rate takes the number of unemployed and divide it by the total labor force in that table. Suggest you learn how to use BLS data

As for the increase in revenue, not sure how old you were in the early 80's or even if you were born but there was very high inflation which affected all aspects of the budget including revenue. The recession began in June 1981 and ended in November 1982. Reagan took office in January with 99 million working Americans and left it at 116 million or a 17 million increase.

Now since you are so concerned about revenue why aren't you excited about the 17 million new taxpayers? Why aren't you more concerned about keeping more of your own money so you need less of that so called Govt. help? Do you believe you can do more good with your money helping those in need than the Govt. helps? Do you think record numbers of people dependent on the Federal taxpayer for support is good fiscal policy and shows success for liberalism?

Erod · Feb 3, 2015

Not allowing Americans to take the full deduction on their mortgage interest and state property taxes is going to cause a massive recession. A lot of people budget according to these deductions and buy houses accordingly to what that deduction allows them to afford. They buy much like an investment in that they buy as much as they can with the idea of selling it for more down the road.

This will be problematic everywhere, especially places where property values are sky high like New York, California, etc.

This will be like the mortgage loan crisis times 1000. The housing market will collapse.

Napoleon · Feb 3, 2015

Conservative said:
No data was falsified, just different tables used. I used the table that is used to post the official unemployment rate and that table shows the actual labor force as well as the total employment. The official unemployment rate takes the number of unemployed and divide it by the total labor force in that table. Suggest you learn how to use BLS data.

I suggest you learn a little something about analytics. Your claim that job growth was solely or primarily responsible for the increase in income tax revenue is dead wrong as I've demonstrated several times already. You are still wrong no matter how many times you try to change the subject.

Conservative · Feb 3, 2015

Napoleon said:
I suggest you learn a little something about analytics. Your claim that job growth was solely or primarily responsible for the increase in income tax revenue is dead wrong as I've demonstrated several times already. You are still wrong no matter how many times you try to change the subject.

Whether it had everything to do with it not isn't as important as the doubling of GDP, the 17 million jobs created, and 60+% increase in FIT revenue, and the Reagan landslide victory in 1984. You can spin it anyway you want but since you weren't obviously there you have no idea what the economic climate was and morale of the country.

Napoleon · Feb 3, 2015

Conservative said:
Whether it had everything to do with it not isn't as important....

I think thats as close to an admission of being wrong that anyone has ever seen out of you. I'll take it.

Conservative · Feb 3, 2015

Napoleon said:
I think thats as close to an admission of being wrong that anyone has ever seen out of you. I'll take it.

Run with it brother, anything to make you happy. Never have I claimed that the increase in FIT revenue was due entirely to the 17 million jobs created because there are indeed other factors involved. The real issue was the success of the Reagan economic policy and the demonizations by Keynesian supporters of that economic policy

Somerville · Feb 4, 2015

One little item from Conservative's post #911

Now since you are so concerned about revenue why aren't you excited about the 17 million new taxpayers?

With all of the present day attacks on the "47% of Americans don't pay (federal) taxes!" and with the Reagan-era tax cuts, even though taxes were raised three times, just not on the 1%, does anyone think all of those 17 million paid income taxes?

Conservative · Feb 4, 2015

Somerville said:
One little item from Conservative's post #911
With all of the present day attacks on the "47% of Americans don't pay (federal) taxes!" and with the Reagan-era tax cuts, even though taxes were raised three times, just not on the 1%, does anyone think all of those 17 million paid income taxes?

How old were you during the Reagan term? So tell me do you understand withholding? You claim taxes were raised three times during the Reagan term, please show me where INCOME TAXES were raised.

Let me ask you what others seem to refuse to answer, is there ever a point in your world where the Federal Govt. gets big enough for you? What is it about socialism that really excites you, taking from someone else so you can have what they have?? Does incentive and personal responsibility reside in your world?

Somerville · Feb 4, 2015

Conservative said:
How old were you during the Reagan term? So tell me do you understand withholding? You claim taxes were raised three times during the Reagan term, please show me where INCOME TAXES were raised.

From the "liberal" (that's sarcasm) Mises Institute

Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.

In 1986, a person who received between $7,010 and $9,170 paid 15% on that income, in 1987 the 15% rate dropped down to cover income of $1,800 to $16,800, in 1988 all income below $17,850 was subject to the 15% tax. In other words people working for minimum wages saw their taxes increase.

Conservative said:
Let me ask you what others seem to refuse to answer, is there ever a point in your world where the Federal Govt. gets big enough for you? What is it about socialism that really excites you, taking from someone else so you can have what they have?? Does incentive and personal responsibility reside in your world?

Yes, the Federal Govt can get too big

The socialism I understand, allows more citizens to rise up and increase their standard of living by not having to worry about how much a doctor visit costs or how one is going to pay for a college education. Democratic socialism means basic standards of living are supported for all. The argument from the right is always about fraud and how much it costs the taxpayers. There is no denying that there are criminal elements in human society but the amounts stolen or taken thru fraudulent claims are generally quite small and the societal plus economic benefits of a more highly-educated populace that doesn't worry about their kids going hungry or having a safe place to live should be obvious to all. I know they aren't obvious to too many but that's owing to ignorance and greed, IMO

Yeah, incentive and personal responsibility reside in my hoped-for world because I have faith in the goodness of the majority of humans, unlike some. I don't view others as greedy, selfish bastards simply because they aren't like me, physically or racially - UNTIL they prove they are less than human, that is.

Conservative · Feb 4, 2015

Somerville said:
From the "liberal" (that's sarcasm) Mises Institute

In 1986, a person who received between $7,010 and $9,170 paid 15% on that income, in 1987 the 15% rate dropped down to cover income of $1,800 to $16,800, in 1988 all income below $17,850 was subject to the 15% tax. In other words people working for minimum wages saw their taxes increase.

Yes, the Federal Govt can get too big

The socialism I understand, allows more citizens to rise up and increase their standard of living by not having to worry about how much a doctor visit costs or how one is going to pay for a college education. Democratic socialism means basic standards of living are supported for all. The argument from the right is always about fraud and how much it costs the taxpayers. There is no denying that there are criminal elements in human society but the amounts stolen or taken thru fraudulent claims are generally quite small and the societal plus economic benefits of a more highly-educated populace that doesn't worry about their kids going hungry or having a safe place to live should be obvious to all. I know they aren't obvious to too many but that's owing to ignorance and greed, IMO

Yeah, incentive and personal responsibility reside in my hoped-for world because I have faith in the goodness of the majority of humans, unlike some. I don't view others as greedy, selfish bastards simply because they aren't like me, physically or racially - UNTIL they prove they are less than human, that is.

Wow, another liberal/socialist who doesn't understand what their taxes fund. Reagan cut FEDERAL INCOME TAXES and raised USE TAXES. One of these days you are going to learn that the unified budget isn't your friend nor the utopia that liberals want it to be. FIT revenue increased 62% after being cut three years in a row and after a recession that lasted from June 1981(before Reagan economic policies passed) and November 1982. Reagan economic policy doubled GDP, created 17 million jobs, and led to the largest landslide victory in modern history. Yes, seems that those tax increases you claimed didn't hurt enough people to prevent them from voting for Reagan and I wonder who those 17 million new job holders voted for?

Montecresto · Feb 4, 2015

Cutting spending would be the preferred, of course. But short of that, to tax and spend is preferred to the republican model of borrow and spend.

Fenton · Feb 4, 2015

Montecresto said:
Cutting spending would be the preferred, of course. But short of that, to tax and spend is preferred to the republican model of borrow and spend.

Yes because that's what Obama has done over the last 6 years.

He's raised taxes to pay for the 8 Trillion in new debt we've added.

Montecresto · Feb 4, 2015

Fenton said:
Yes because that's what Obama has done over the last 6 years.

He's raised taxes to pay for the 8 Trillion in new debt we've added.

Well that's the point. George W Bush doubled the national debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion, something you've seemed perfectly at ease with. Apparently, it's only when a democratic president doubles the ND (something Obama will likely accomplish as well) that partisans such as yourself begin the hand wringing. Personally, I have issues with federal government debt and would support a CA banning it. All spending should be paid for by tax and other revenues. Perhaps then, Americans would be less interested in maintaining a global police force and more interested with our own domestic ills. And there's no doubt a bunch of other spending Americans would learn to live without too.

Conservative · Feb 4, 2015

Montecresto said:
Well that's the point. George W Bush doubled the national debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion, something you've seemed perfectly at ease with. Apparently, it's only when a democratic president doubles the ND (something Obama will likely accomplish as well) that partisans such as yourself begin the hand wringing. Personally, I have issues with federal government debt and would support a CA banning it. All spending should be paid for by tax and other revenues. Perhaps then, Americans would be less interested in maintaining a global police force and more interested with our own domestic ills. And there's no doubt a bunch of other spending Americans would learn to live without too.

Awe, yes, Bush doubled the debt by adding 4.9 trillion to the debt is a lot worse than Obama increasing it over 70% by adding 7.6 trillion to it. That is liberal logic

Partisans who demonize Bush for adding to the debt ignore that one trillion of it was due to 9/11 and I thought most Americans said they would never forget. Apparently that wasn't you

Do you have any idea how much of that debt is due to social spending? Any concept on how much of the budget is dedicated to social ills? Do ou have a limit on how big your Federal Govt should be since obviously the 4 trillion Obama budget isn't it?

Montecresto · Feb 4, 2015

Conservative said:
Awe, yes, Bush doubled the debt by adding 4.9 trillion to the debt is a lot worse than Obama increasing it over 70% by adding 7.6 trillion to it. That is liberal logic

Partisans who demonize Bush for adding to the debt ignore that one trillion of it was due to 9/11 and I thought most Americans said they would never forget. Apparently that wasn't you

Do you have any idea how much of that debt is due to social spending? Any concept on how much of the budget is dedicated to social ills? Do ou have a limit on how big your Federal Govt should be since obviously the 4 trillion Obama budget isn't it?

Reagan tripled it, Bush 43 doubled it, and Obama is on course to double it again, how about consistently criticising government spending, rather then your partisan opinions that help nothing.