Tax Cuts Are A Bigger Problem Than Spending

jaeger19 · Jun 6, 2017

Critter7r said:
It doesn't "sit" anywhere.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

It *does* vasillate ... between 15 & 18% with a couple forays down to 14 and up to 20% might be more accurate. And a 1% change means about $200Billion in revenue gained or lost from the private sector. (not sure where I got that Billion-dollar figure from before). That's a significant amount of money to leave in, or take out of, the hands of the people, depending on which people we're talking about.

Actually, I think inequality has more to do with productivity than taxation, so we need to adjust the taxation to account for that productivity. We need to make it more lucrative (less onerous?) to pay workers more, than to take profits that are gained from productivity.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Okay.. that's funny. Take a look at your graph and notice the y axis denominations... then take a look at the pretty flat line that between 1950 and present.. with just a few hiccups. that's not vacillating between 14 and 20.

As far as "its a 200 Billion change".. whishkabible it shows that the percentage of tax doesn't appreciable change from when we were at 90% top marginal rate to todays. In fact.. if you look at your graft.. a good portion of the time that "rates were 90% on the rich".. the percentage of revenue per gdp was actually lower than it is now.

Actually, I think inequality has more to do with productivity than taxation, so we need to adjust the taxation to account for that productivity. We need to make it more lucrative (less onerous?) to pay workers more, than to take profits that are gained from productivity.

interesting.. but I think you have it backwards. We make it onerous to pay workers at all. The way to make money is to manipulate stock prices and not actually produce anything. So a hedge fund manager takes over a company.. makes severe cuts which makes stockholder happy, doesn't fund the retirement funds etc. Everything that makes the companies short term financials look great even though long term it means the company goes bankrupt or needs to be sold etc.. but that short term financial causes a dramatic rise in stock price. The hedge fund then sells the stock at a huge profit.. and moves on to the next company, leaving other to pick over the body. and it gets a huge tax bump for this since stockholders pay capital gains rates on stock sold after a year.

jaeger19 · Jun 6, 2017

Winston said:
1% of GDP is a metric **** ton of money. 1% of GDP could pay for public colleges and university tuition twice over, an investment that pays a return itself. (among other things. VA benefits, expanding Medicaid)

.

Interesting.. so according to you. we need to DROP the percentage of taxation like it was in the 1950's to 1970's when we paid for such stuff?

I don't think the tax rate is divorced from the rate of inequality. I think inequality has some correlation to the tax code.

Explain how taxing me more makes me pay my employees more.

What you will find is that inequality that has occurred is because of PRE TAX rise in incomes of the wealthy. not because of taxes.

If you look at countries with below average inequality, I'll use AU as an example. They have a higher minimum wage. It's a policy decision. They pay minimum wage workers $16/hour. I believe that helps fight inequality. Money that heads to the top in the United States is paid to a worker in the lowest quartile of income earners. And we know the lowest quartiles spend extra income.

The problem with this theory is that if you make the cost of labor too high so that American companies can't compete with say a mexico.. then they have to increase their productivity (which is how they are competing largely now) even greater.. which can mean loss of jobs and wages.

Winston · Jun 6, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Interesting.. so according to you. we need to DROP the percentage of taxation like it was in the 1950's to 1970's when we paid for such stuff?

This doesn't address my conversation.

Explain how taxing me more makes me pay my employees more.

What you will find is that inequality that has occurred is because of PRE TAX rise in incomes of the wealthy. not because of taxes.

The capital gains rate being so low has a relationship with inequality. Research I posted earlier supports this.

However, would you support a tax incentive to pay employees more? If the government gave companies a tax benny for paying workers 20% above min. wage?

The problem with this theory is that if you make the cost of labor too high so that American companies can't compete with say a mexico.. then they have to increase their productivity (which is how they are competing largely now) even greater.. which can mean loss of jobs and wages.

Of course. Min. wage hikes have unintended consequences on prices and unemployment. An agreement on something reasonable should be made. Min. wage is highly regional too.

Helix · Jun 6, 2017

backpacker said:
Then pay for your public transportation system and not expect people driving down dirt roads to help pay for your easier commute. That should be a local issue, not a national one.

i don't agree. transportation is an important national issue.

backpacker · Jun 6, 2017

Helix said:
i don't agree. transportation is an important national issue.

There is a fundamental difference between having highways be a national issue and whether you have to take the bus, the subway, or Ubber to the bar being a national issue.

Helix · Jun 6, 2017

backpacker said:
There is a fundamental difference between having highways be a national issue and whether you have to take the bus, the subway, or Ubber to the bar being a national issue.

highways are certainly a national issue, as are the transportation models that will almost certainly become necessary to take some of the strain off of them. either way, not a local issue.

Critter7r · Jun 6, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Okay.. that's funny. Take a look at your graph and notice the y axis denominations... then take a look at the pretty flat line that between 1950 and present.. with just a few hiccups. that's not vacillating between 14 and 20.

That line is not flat. In

1950 it's 13.1
1952 it's 17.99 (+4.89% in 2 years)
1955 it's 15.3 (-2.7% in 3 years)
1957 it's 16.8 (+1.5% in 2 years)
1959 it's 15.1 (-1.7% in 2 years)
1960 it's 17% (+1.9% in a year)
1965 it's 15.7 (-1.3% in 5 years)
1967 - 17.2 (+1.5% in 2 years)

It goes on and on like that ... +1, -2, +1.5, -1.9, +2.5, -2.1, +1.5, +, -, +, -, +, - ... It is literally the definition of vacillate. (I already conceded that "15 to 18, with a couple forays down to 14 and up to 20 would have been more accurate"). But even a 1% change is a ton of extra money one way or the other.

jaeger19 · Jun 7, 2017

Critter7r said:
That line is not flat. In

1950 it's 13.1
1952 it's 17.99 (+4.89% in 2 years)
1955 it's 15.3 (-2.7% in 3 years)
1957 it's 16.8 (+1.5% in 2 years)
1959 it's 15.1 (-1.7% in 2 years)
1960 it's 17% (+1.9% in a year)
1965 it's 15.7 (-1.3% in 5 years)
1967 - 17.2 (+1.5% in 2 years)

It goes on and on like that ... +1, -2, +1.5, -1.9, +2.5, -2.1, +1.5, +, -, +, -, +, - ... It is literally the definition of vacillate. (I already conceded that "15 to 18, with a couple forays down to 14 and up to 20 would have been more accurate"). But even a 1% change is a ton of extra money one way or the other.

sorry but its actually flat.. not exactly flat.. but certainly with very very small changes.. while the top marginal rate had HUGE changes.

Critter7r · Jun 7, 2017

jaeger19 said:
sorry but its actually flat.. not exactly flat.. but certainly with very very small changes.. while the top marginal rate had HUGE changes.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "small". lol

While 1-3% sounds like a "small" change, it's a ****load of money overall when taken in the context that it is 1-3% of GDP, which was nearly $19 TRILLION in 2016. $190 BILLION per 1% change is not an insignificant portion of the entire Federal annual budget. (it's about 5% of it)

And you yourself said that hardly anyone paid those 90% top rates. So when the rates dropped, the number of people affected was insignificant.

So here we have a numerically small change in the numbers having a large impact, while a numerically large change in the numbers has a small impact.

jaeger19 · Jun 7, 2017

Winston said:
This doesn't address my conversation.

.

Oh it does.

The capital gains rate being so low has a relationship with inequality. Research I posted earlier supports this.

The problem is it doesn't show that the relationship is causal.. in fact there is little to show a causal relationship.

However, would you support a tax incentive to pay employees more? If the government gave companies a tax benny for paying workers 20% above min. wage?

Absolutely not.. and that's because the issue is not taxes. We need to change the fundamental issues that are causing the decrease in wages. things like illegal immigration.. in some cases legal immigration. Anti union legislation. Lack of infrastructure and research development by the government. just to name a few.

jaeger19 · Jun 7, 2017

Critter7r said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "small". lol

While 1-3% sounds like a "small" change, it's a ****load of money overall when taken in the context that it is 1-3% of GDP, which was nearly $19 TRILLION in 2016. $190 BILLION per 1% change is not an insignificant portion of the entire Federal annual budget. (it's about 5% of it)

And you yourself said that hardly anyone paid those 90% top rates. So when the rates dropped, the number of people affected was insignificant.

So here we have a numerically small change in the numbers having a large impact, while a numerically large change in the numbers has a small impact.

Whatever. Look..I get it.. you want to make it out some other conversation.

But the fact remains. Liberals want higher taxes because they think they need to pay for stuff for the poor and middle class.. and demand a 90% hike on the wealthy because "look how good things were in the past".

And completely ignore the reality is that during those times when we had those 90 and 70% , the revenue was the same or LESS.. than now. In fact.. though marginal rates on the wealthy varied tremendously over the years.. the revenue rate is relatively stable.. hovering around 18%.

Which indicates that marginal rates ended up not having much of an effect.. Except it will make liberals feel better.

sear · Jun 7, 2017

"they ... demand a 90% hike on the wealthy because "look how good things were in the past"." j1 #337

"They would have us borrow $700 $Billion $Dollars over the next ten years, to give a tax cut of about a $hundred $thousand $dollars each to folks who are already $millionaires." U.S. President Obama 2010

" because "look how good things were in the past"." j1 #337

That's amusing fiction, but conspicuously ridiculous.

Instead, the truth is those nations such as Denmark with a narrower gulf between rich and poor have a higher happiness quotient. Concentrating wealth in the top 1% of the population does not promote overall national benefit. And studies have already been done which prove that.

We can still have F-22's and nuclear submarines, without also having Vietnam era vets sleeping in cardboard boxes in alleyways.

jaeger19 · Jun 8, 2017

sear said:
"they ... demand a 90% hike on the wealthy because "look how good things were in the past"." j1 #337

" because "look how good things were in the past"." j1 #337

That's amusing fiction, but conspicuously ridiculous.

Instead, the truth is those nations such as Denmark with a narrower gulf between rich and poor have a higher happiness quotient. Concentrating wealth in the top 1% of the population does not promote overall national benefit. And studies have already been done which prove that.

We can still have F-22's and nuclear submarines, without also having Vietnam era vets sleeping in cardboard boxes in alleyways.

that's amusing. The question is how do we do that?

the inequity in America is NOT the result of our tax structure. ITS NOT because we don't collect enough taxes and its NOT because the burden is too low on the wealthy.

The inequity is PRE TAX.. in other words the wealthy make a larger percentage of PRE TAX income than ever before. That's not because of taxes.. and thus its absurd to think that taxes are the means in which to fix the problem.

The irony.. is that most of the proposals of taxing the wealthy more.. will only tax certain wealthy.. mostly smaller business owners.. more.. and most of the proposals for increasing snap and other benefits (like healthcare) will simply increase the gulf between the wealthy and the poor.. not decrease it.

Where do you think all that money goes from welfare benefits? I'll tell you it doesn;t end up in the bank accounts of poor people. It ends up in the bank accounts of wealthy people. Its one of the reasons that inequality has increased.

sear · Jun 8, 2017

"ITS NOT because we don't collect enough taxes and its NOT because the burden is too low on the wealthy." j1 #339

I thought Ronald Reagan was the Republican demigod.
I thought Republicans genuflected to him, and his 8 year presidential administration.

Weren't taxes on the wealthy higher then than now?

And regarding pre-tax, what do you propose? Nixon tried wage and price controls, and it seems broadly agreed upon as a disaster.

There are some government schemes about leveling that out. Minimum wage for obvious example.

But minimum wage is no panacea, and may very well do more harm than good.

I suspect in a few years some or most jobs at (for example) McD's will be automated; performed by robots.

That's fine.

BUT !!

a) McD's has been an excellent training ground for generations of pre-graduation high school students, at entry level employment.

b) If all jobs are done by robots, who will have any money to pay for product or service?

jaeger19 · Jun 9, 2017

sear said:
I thought Ronald Reagan was the Republican demigod.
I thought Republicans genuflected to him, and his 8 year presidential administration.

Weren't taxes on the wealthy higher then than now?

And regarding pre-tax, what do you propose? Nixon tried wage and price controls, and it seems broadly agreed upon as a disaster.

There are some government schemes about leveling that out. Minimum wage for obvious example.

But minimum wage is no panacea, and may very well do more harm than good.

I suspect in a few years some or most jobs at (for example) McD's will be automated; performed by robots.

That's fine.

BUT !!

a) McD's has been an excellent training ground for generations of pre-graduation high school students, at entry level employment.

b) If all jobs are done by robots, who will have any money to pay for product or service?

Reagan was well before my time. and he is no demigod.

Nor do I nor most republicans genuflect to him or any other human.

As far as taxes to the wealthy? It depends on what actions you mean from Reagan. During his tenure taxes were cut.. especially the wealthy.. but then he ended up increasing taxes as the deficit skyrockets.. but in many ways he increased taxes on the poor and middle class with things like increase wage taxes. And he increased taxes on the wealthy as well at times by reducing tax loopholes and deductions etc.

In the 1981 and 1986 tax cuts Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate from 70 to 28%

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

But he raised taxes as well.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate

Reagan's era was a mixed bag of lowering marginal tax rates.. but increasing effective tax rates by reducing tax loopholes and tax shelters and broadening the tax base.

And regarding pre-tax, what do you propose? Nixon tried wage and price controls, and it seems broadly agreed upon as a disaster.

Start with the reasons that wage pressure has been lowered in this country. Illegal immigration.. face it.. millions of people willing to come here illegally and work for less simply decreases wage pressure and undermines collective bargaining and undermines our labor laws.

to some extent legal immigration.. we give out work visas to tech workers from india because they will work for less, meanwhile we have new college grads that can't find a job with the same education.

I suspect in a few years some or most jobs at (for example) McD's will be automated; performed by robots.

That's likely right. So what countries are on the cutting edge of producing those robots, maintaining those robots, maintining their software or programming them etc?

Where are our robotics programs, basic engineering and physics in schools.. are our school children being taught and pushed toward the skills and education they will need for the future? At one time.. the use promoted science and math and stringent education.. and why? Because there was a national program to be better at science than the soviets.. to lead the world in getting to space and the moon. Those kind of national programs and vision drove investment and technology and infrastructure.. just as railroads did, just as hydroelectric power and dams did and just as the nuclear program and space programs did. Point to the major research and infrastructure program/vision that we have had in the last two decades. You would be hardpressed to find anything.

We should be investing nationally in an energy program.. with the effort to make the US energy independent and energy rich with renewable energy. Real national programs.. not tax breaks and subsidies to corporate donors with no real goals in place.

b

) If all jobs are done by robots, who will have any money to pay for product or service?.

The uber wealthy...

sear · Jun 9, 2017

"Reagan was well before my time." j1 #340

As was George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al.
That doesn't mean we've turned our backs on their historic contributions.

"and he [Reagan] is no demigod." j1

Actually he is.

demigod (dèm´ê-gòd´) noun
A person who is highly honored or revered.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

albeit within the GOP.

The attribute applies, by dictionary definition.

The sanity check, the independent confirmation that it's not merely my unsubstantiated opinion, but a reflection of broadly held attitudes:

The problem with Ronald Reagan as a demigod | Nooga.com

The problem with Ronald Reagan as a demigod | Nooga.com... Proxy Highlight

Feb 3, 2015 ... However, by hyperinflating his legacy and making a demigod out of Reagan, the GOP has unintentionally given liberals a very helpful tool in ...
The Real Reagan - Salon.com

The Real Reagan - Salon.com Proxy Highlight

Stories about The Real Reagan. ... Will Bunch, author of "Tear Down This Myth," explains how the Gipper was transformed into a conservative demigod.
Ronald Reagan: The great storyteller's story | The Economist

www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21650065-excell... Proxy Highlight

May 2, 2015 ... MORE than a decade after his death, Ronald Reagan still divides people. American conservatives revere him as practically a demigod.
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Riordan Wiki - Wikia

riordan.wikia.com/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Washington_Natio... Proxy Highlight

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is a major airport situated three miles south of...
Demigods | Krishna.com

Demigods | Krishna.com Proxy Highlight

Demigods and demigoddesses are often mentioned in Vedic literature as the ... When Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” I was not alone in feeling ...
"Raisin's Back" · New Girl · TV Review New Girl brings Reagan back ...

Page not found | The A.V. Club... Proxy Highlight

Jan 3, 2017 ... Realizing he's mistaken an original Bishop-Parekh track for “Swedish EDM demigod Avicii,” Schmidt yells, “This must be a shenanigan!” But on ...
The Reagan Ruins | HuffPost

www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-reagan-r... Proxy Highlight

Feb 1, 2011 ... For conservatives, Reagan is the lodestar, the genial demigod to whom all must avow fealty. In a Time cover story, Michael Scherer and ...
Reagan Davenport | In Demigods We Trust | RolePlayGateway

https://www.roleplaygateway.com/roleplay/in-demigods-... Proxy Highlight

Reagan has a few scars on her body. Nothing major, mostly from her rough housing and being a dare devil growing up. She also has a tattoo of a sparrow and ...
Are Republicans falling out of love with Ronald Reagan? - The Week

www.theweek.com/articles/570755/are-republicans-falli... Proxy Highlight

Aug 10, 2015 ... ... demigod among mortals, America's greatest president and a man who walked the Earth without sin. I speak, of course, of Ronald Reagan.
Reagan Started the GOP's Fascism Destroying America From Within

www.politicususa.com/2015/12/28/reagan-started-gops-f... Proxy Highlight

Dec 28, 2015 ... Reagan ushered in the first step of fascism, economic stagnation, when his ... years that began with conservative demigod Ronald Reagan.

Cyberspace is clogged with references to U.S. President Reagan as a demigod.
Why would that, how could that POSSIBLY be, if Reagan were NOT regarded as such?

"Nor do I nor most republicans genuflect to him or any other human." j1

Rhetorically they do.

"As far as taxes to the wealthy? It depends on what actions you mean from Reagan." j1

"Actions"?
I don't recall having introduced the word "actions".
My posted comment addressed tax RATES.

"During his tenure taxes were cut.. especially the wealthy.. but then he ended up increasing taxes as the deficit skyrockets.." j1

Reagan was a hypocrite.

Governor Reagan campaigned against President Carter criticizing Carter for deficit spending. And during the campaign Reagan advocated balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

BUT !!

Once in office, not only did Reagan run up more U.S. federal debt than Carter.
Reagan ran up more U.S. federal debt than all the previous U.S. presidents before him, COMBINED !!

And yet Reagan remains the Republican demigod.

jaeger19 · Jun 9, 2017

sear said:
.

The sanity check, the independent confirmation that it's not merely my unsubstantiated opinion, but a reflection of broadly held attitudes:

Cyberspace is clogged with references to U.S. President Reagan as a demigod.
Why would that, how could that POSSIBLY be, if Reagan were NOT regarded as such?

That's pretty easy Sear. Because its people that don't revere Reagan.. writing about how they THINK that republicans feel about Reagan..
Just as you think I as a republican must revere him and genuflect. YOU wrote about it.. but that doesn;t make it true for me.

Lets give you an example from your cyberspace.. the ones you linked to..

Dec 28, 2015 ... Reagan ushered in the first step of fascism, economic stagnation, when his ... years that began with conservative demigod Ronald Reagan

Aug 10, 2015 ... ... demigod among mortals, America's greatest president and a man who walked the Earth without sin. I speak, of course, of Ronald Reagan.
Reagan Started the GOP's Fascism Destroying America From Within

Hmm.. that's doesn;t sound like republicans speaking about Reagan and what they think.. that sounds like liberal democrats stating what they THINK Reagan is to conservatives.

The reality is that in today;s world.. Reagan would be seen as a Rino by the far right in the republican party.

Actions"?
I don't recall having introduced the word "actions".
My posted comment addressed tax RATES.

Well.. there are marginal tax rates and effective tax rates income tax rates and payroll tax rates. ...and its a mixed bag. He dropped income tax marginal rates.. but later increased the effective tax rates.

He dropped income tax rates but accelerated increased payroll tax rates .

Once in office, not only did Reagan run up more U.S. federal debt than Carter.
Reagan ran up more U.S. federal debt than all the previous U.S. presidents before him, COMBINED !!

Yep

And yet Reagan remains the Republican demigod

Well that's your opinion on how I as a republican feel. Which is worth bupkiss..

sear · Jun 9, 2017

"you think I as a republican must revere him and genuflect." j1 #342 aka Kreskin

- piffle -

It would never occur to me to insinuate your position.
I observed the irrefutable fact that Reagan is the Republican demigod.

I NEVER, NEVER NEVER asserted that 100% of all Republicans are in unanimity about it.

"YOU wrote about it.." j1

An absolute indisputable fact!

"but that doesn;t make it true for me." j1

Completely true, but 100% irrelevant, as I never accused you specifically of it. I addressed the party.

"Well.. there are marginal tax rates and effective tax rates income tax rates and payroll tax rates. ...and its a mixed bag. He dropped income tax marginal rates.. but later increased the effective tax rates." j1

Lovely, but immaterial.
You're addressing change DURING Reagan's administration.
My comment didn't address that.

My posted comment contrasted the rate today to the rate then.

"And yet Reagan remains the Republican demigod
Well that's your opinion on how I as a republican feel. Which is worth bupkiss.. " j1

False!

That's YOUR opinion of my opinion.

And you're simply flat out WRONG about it!!

If I make a comment about YOUR opinion, you'll know.

My comment address the Republican party collectively; NOT every single Republican voter. So your claim indicates either you think, or you think I think (or both) that such opinion within a political party must be unanimous, 100.ooo ...%

But know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not, among populations of that size, and particularly among political parties that size, there is rarely 100.ooo ... % unanimity of opinion on every detail.

And your suggestion to the contrary is completely conspicuously absurd. And the detail that you attribute this conspicuous absurdity to me has not escaped my notice. You misunderestimate me sir.

jaeger19 · Jun 9, 2017

sear said:
- piffle -

It would never occur to me to insinuate your position.
I observed the irrefutable fact that Reagan is the Republican demigod.

I NEVER, NEVER NEVER asserted that 100% of all Republicans are in unanimity about it.

An absolute indisputable fact!

.

No its not an indisputable fact. You asserted that he is the republican demigod.. I am a republican.. so are millions of other americans that are republican and don't "genuflect" to Reagan as a "demigod".

In fact.. the vast majority.

Its your perception that he is seen as a demigod. Not ours.

Completely true, but 100% irrelevant, as I never accused you specifically of it. I addressed the party.

And I am a member of that party and am pretty active in it.. and I can attest that he is not seen as a demigod. While you have pulled examples of people who are obviously not republicans.. declaring the Reagan is a demigod to a group that they don't even belong to.

You're addressing change DURING Reagan's administration.My posted comment contrasted the rate today to the rate then

and the rate then.. during the Reagan administration CHANGED during that time. So it depends on where you put your "then" and what you mean by rate.

That's YOUR opinion of my opinion.

And you're simply flat out WRONG about it!!

Oh wait. so you didn;t say that "Reagan is a demigod to republicans"? cuz I can show you did.

And guess what.. I am a republican. So yes you made a comment on what you think I as a republican think,

And if you state that collectively.. well I am part of the collective. AS are millions of republicans that don't revere and genuflect to Reagan.

And your suggestion to the contrary is completely conspicuously absurd. And the detail that you attribute this conspicuous absurdity to me has not escaped my notice. You misunderestimate me sir.

No I estimate you just fine. You responded to MY post.. my post on taxes etc.. with your inane comments about Reagan being a demigod of the republican party. And you did that to distract from the fact that you have no answer to the points I made with my posts regarding taxes, and pre tax income etc. You were hoping to bait me because you assume erroneously that republican actually think Reagan is a demigod.. when.. well we don't.

Its why your examples were largely of democrat liberals who view Reagan as the beginning of fascism.. :roll: stating that Reagan is a demigod to republicans.

sear · Jun 9, 2017

"and the rate then.. during the Reagan administration CHANGED during that time. So it depends on where you put your "then" and what you mean by rate." j1

And thus it was a range.

BUT !!

When that range in entirety exceeds the rate compared to the contrasted administration, the rate would as I observed, have been higher during the Reagan administration. News reports have confirmed that.

jaeger19 · Jun 9, 2017

sear said:
And thus it was a range.

BUT !!

When that range in entirety exceeds the rate compared to the contrasted administration, the rate would as I observed, have been higher during the Reagan administration. News reports have confirmed that.

Only during part of the administration.. not the entirety of the administration. Nominal taxes on the wealthy ended up being lower at the end of the administration than the "contrasted administration" 28%.. for the top rate.

boredatwork · Jun 16, 2017

Winston said:
Look at countries like Germany and Sweden. They spend on a single-payer healthcare system. They also spend more on their citizens in general. But, they are taxed significantly higher than us. They provide more for their society without damaging their budget. Both countries run surpluses.

I think it should be noted that every health care system in the world is subsidized by the US Health Care consumer who is being bent over and forced to subsidize the research costs of drugs and equipment.
Or at least this is what the health care industry tells us when we try to change the laws to allow cross border purchase of medicine.

sear · Jun 16, 2017

"Or at least this is what the health care industry tells us when we try to change the laws to allow cross border purchase of medicine." bw #347

It's a little more complicated than that.

Our FDA applies standards for both name brand prescription medications, and generic alternatives.
The FDA assures us they are pharmaceutical equivalents.

Please do not infer more than I imply.
I'm NOT justifying the U.S. federal government's position on this. Instead I'm merely explaining it.

Our government cannot guarantee either the potency (mg strength), or the safety (Arsenic content) in ostensible pharmaceuticals generated beyond FDA jurisdiction.

The Trump administration has emitted low murmurs about relaxing the restrictions on U.S. citizens procuring prescription meds from foreign sources. Too soon to know the details, or timetable.

Tax Cuts Are A Bigger Problem Than Spending

jaeger19

jaeger19

Winston

Give me convenience or give me death

Helix

backpacker

Helix

Critter7r

jaeger19

Critter7r

jaeger19

jaeger19

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jaeger19

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jaeger19

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jaeger19

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jaeger19

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"

jaeger19

boredatwork

New member

sear

Advisor, aka "bub"