Kiss conservatism goodye, debt up 84% over last year

jonny5 · May 30, 2018

OscarLevant said:
My post wasn't a "blame" post, so that's not on point.

Now then,

You can't have "conservatism" without fiscal responsibility, that's a core tenet. So, all the flavors of conservatism embrace it.

My only point is, since the GOP and conservatism, for years, were joined at the hip, the GOP, by embracing Trump, is kissing it goodbye.

Everything else you are saying is another subject I wasn't addressing.

To be fair, you didnt really make a clear point in in your OP. You just wrote a couple sarcastic lines. Furthermore, the debt isnt up 84% because of Trump, and not even because of the GOP. Its up because of decades of out of control mandatory spending:

The govt takes in 1.9 trillion in income and corporate tax, and 1.2 trillion in payroll tax.
The payroll tax covers SS and Medicare Part A outlays.
The income tax covers defense and non defense discretionary spending, with 700 bn to spare.
Then we have to pay 300bn interest on the debt racked up by decades of unfunded social spending
Then we have another trillion in mandatory spending to pay for, all of which accounts for the debt.

And most of this social spending was driven by the democrats. Medicare B, Medicaid, SCHIP, Insurance subsidies, SNAP, Unemployment, Welfare, Job training, etc.

jonny5 · May 30, 2018

NeverTrumpGOP said:
Trumpistan?
the US is now a Kleptocracy. A system where corrupt leaders use their power to exploit the people and natural resources in order to extend their personal wealth and political powers.

Its not exploitation if the people choose it.

MrWonka · May 30, 2018

Hawkeye10 said:
Both parties have been debt junkies

Sorry, but no. You don't get to do that. You see the point here is that conservatives claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but they never actually walk the walk. They just talk the talk when a liberal is in the white house, but when it's their turn they not only don't reign in spending, but they actually make the problem worse.

Both President Obama and President Clinton inherited massive deficits early in their terms, only to reduce them over the course of their presidency. Meanwhile, the last four consecutive "Conservative" presidents presided over deficits of their own choosing.

The question is why? Because even so-called Republicans know damn well that deficits can improve the economy in the short term, and they care more about getting re-elected than they do about fiscal responsibility.

Democrats may spend money, but they at least try to make sure they are collecting the Tax Revenues necessary to cover what they spend. And what they spend, they spend on investments in our countries infrastructure, education, and healthcare instead of handing it out to millionaires who already have more money than they know what to do with it.

The Democrats are far far more qualified to refer to themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility.

OscarLevant · May 30, 2018

jonny5 said:
To be fair, you didnt really make a clear point in in your OP. You just wrote a couple sarcastic lines. Furthermore, the debt isnt up 84% because of Trump, and not even because of the GOP. Its up because of decades of out of control mandatory spending:

The govt takes in 1.9 trillion in income and corporate tax, and 1.2 trillion in payroll tax.
The payroll tax covers SS and Medicare Part A outlays.
The income tax covers defense and non defense discretionary spending, with 700 bn to spare.
Then we have to pay 300bn interest on the debt racked up by decades of unfunded social spending
Then we have another trillion in mandatory spending to pay for, all of which accounts for the debt.

And most of this social spending was driven by the democrats. Medicare B, Medicaid, SCHIP, Insurance subsidies, SNAP, Unemployment, Welfare, Job training, etc.

Lowering taxes on the rich, which wasn't necessary, contributes to the debt (and deficits), and that is the point. We feel the taxes on the rich ( the really rich, should be raised to a level where, after deductions, they are paying an average of 42%, like they were in the 50s.) Bernie wants to take away the deductions and make it 50%, which is probably too steep to pass any legislature, including dems.

Those programs are very necessary, with the rich getting more and more of the pie, and the poor getting less and less. But, lowering taxes on the rich contributes to the deficit, which, in turn, causes inflation, which in turn, taxes the poor and savings due to erosion of purchasing power and the lack of low wages keeping up with inflation.

Hawkeye10 · May 30, 2018

MrWonka said:
Sorry, but no. You don't get to do that. You see the point here is that conservatives claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but they never actually walk the walk. They just talk the talk when a liberal is in the white house, but when it's their turn they not only don't reign in spending, but they actually make the problem worse.

Both President Obama and President Clinton inherited massive deficits early in their terms, only to reduce them over the course of their presidency. Meanwhile, the last four consecutive "Conservative" presidents presided over deficits of their own choosing.

The question is why? Because even so-called Republicans know damn well that deficits can improve the economy in the short term, and they care more about getting re-elected than they do about fiscal responsibility.

Democrats may spend money, but they at least try to make sure they are collecting the Tax Revenues necessary to cover what they spend. And what they spend, they spend on investments in our countries infrastructure, education, and healthcare instead of handing it out to millionaires who already have more money than they know what to do with it.

The Democrats are far far more qualified to refer to themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility.

We understood clearly back early 1980's that we needed to figure out how to finance the retirement of the boomer generation, which did not happen, which neither party showed hardly any interest in accomplishing....I do get to blame both parties.

jonny5 · May 31, 2018

OscarLevant said:
Lowering taxes on the rich, which wasn't necessary, contributes to the debt (and deficits), and that is the point. We feel the taxes on the rich ( the really rich, should be raised to a level where, after deductions, they are paying an average of 42%, like they were in the 50s.) Bernie wants to take away the deductions and make it 50%, which is probably too steep to pass any legislature, including dems.

Those programs are very necessary, with the rich getting more and more of the pie, and the poor getting less and less. But, lowering taxes on the rich contributes to the deficit, which, in turn, causes inflation, which in turn, taxes the poor and savings due to erosion of purchasing power and the lack of low wages keeping up with inflation.

The top 1% ARE paying 40% of all income tax, and 75% of all taxes is going to the not rich. The rich arent getting anything. They earn it, and then the govt takes it from them and gives it to someone else.

The debt is not caused by tax cuts or lack of revenue. In 2018 the govt will collect nearly 4 trillion dollars, 18% of every single dollar produced. Thats more than enough.

MTAtech · May 31, 2018

Exquisitor said:
Both Parties are applying the same science; the science of deception; presumably so they can maintain power to serve the people they deceive; the only thing that matters in your presentation is that you win. Until we the people wake up and quit following this condition response mechanism advertising society that feeds on destructive habits and whims; nothing will change and any raja-risi (Saintly King) would be wasting their time.

Once again, this is the same claim that the parties are symmetric. They aren't. For example, the reluctance of Democrats to cut Social Security and Medicare is not equivalent to the GOP’s consistent pursuit of huge unfunded tax cuts, that the occasional desire of Democrats to put evidence in a more favorable light is not equivalent to the constant, raw dishonesty emanating from the right-wing. Pundits have largely bought in to this equivalence fantasy by pretending that Republican politicians are actually the kind of statesmen the party used to contain, but no longer does. No, Paul Ryan is not a fiscal wonk. Trump is not a populist. They are charlatans.

"Until we the people wake up and" realize that the Democrats, who have always represented and championed the working class, still want to enact policies that help the working class -- as opposed to false populist Republicans that merely say they they are going to help the workers, but when elected go off and pass the same pro-donor class policies that Republicans always pass when in power, we are going to get more of the same.

MTAtech · May 31, 2018

jonny5 said:
The top 1% ARE paying 40% of all income tax, and 75% of all taxes is going to the not rich. The rich arent getting anything. They earn it, and then the govt takes it from them and gives it to someone else.

The debt is not caused by tax cuts or lack of revenue. In 2018 the govt will collect nearly 4 trillion dollars, 18% of every single dollar produced. Thats more than enough.

I think we need to pass the hat around for those poor rich people.

What your statement above does is mix "income taxes" with taxes. That 75% of "all taxes" included Social Security and Medicare taxes -- both the very rich pay little. Yes, the rich pay more than their proportion and they should. I thonk that they should pay even more.

The rich aren't getting anything? They are getting control of the country; a justice system and police that is strong that protects them and their wealth; an educated workforce; and a communications and transportation system that allows them to earn wealth.

Hedgology · May 31, 2018

MTAtech said:
I think we need to pass the hat around for those poor rich people.

What your statement above does is mix "income taxes" with taxes. That 75% of "all taxes" included Social Security and Medicare taxes -- both the very rich pay little. Yes, the rich pay more than their proportion and they should. I thonk that they should pay even more.

The rich aren't getting anything? They are getting control of the country; a justice system and police that is strong that protects them and their wealth; an educated workforce; and a communications and transportation system that allows them to earn wealth.

The United States has the most progressive tax system compared to any other economy: advanced or developing.

MTAtech · May 31, 2018

Hedgology said:
The United States has the most progressive tax system compared to any other economy: advanced or developing.

That's not true at all.

....

This decline in tax rates for the wealthy has coincided with an increase in income inequality, where most of the wage gains have been concentrated among a relatively small portion of the American people. For example, since 1979, earnings for households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution have risen by over 250 percent. At the same time, many households at the middle and bottom of the income distribution have experienced stagnating incomes or even declines in earnings (figure below, blue bars). This means that the very people who have received the biggest income gains in the past three decades have also seen the largest tax cuts (figure below, red bars).
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2012/04/13/just-how-progressive-is-the-u-s-tax-code/

The latest Trump tax cuts has just made a bad system even worse.

How does the U.S. compare with other wealthy countries when it comes to taxes?

Taxes in the United States, at all levels of government, make up a smaller share of national gross domestic product than in nearly any other of the rich countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

In 2015, for instance, total tax revenue in the United States amounted to just 26.4 percent of GDP, well below the OECD average of 34.3 percent. Only Korea, Ireland, Chile and Mexico collected less tax as a share of GDP.

In countries like Denmark, France and Belgium, by contrast, tax receipts add up to well over 40 percent of GDP. Those countries tend to provide much more robust social safety nets than the United States does.

Hedgology · May 31, 2018

MTAtech said:
That's not true at all.

.

The first chart is inaccurate (or misleading), as it only compares how inequality is reduced in relation to tax transfers. That is not how you measure progressiveness of taxes. A tax is considered "progressive" if the more you earn, the more money you can expect to pay in taxes.

The United States, in that regard, has the most progressive income tax.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-least/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b0d6593115c

What your chart is actually measuring is how effective each government utilizes the tax revenue to lower inequality, which the United States is terrible at. The United States tax system is the most progressive; the spending is not so much.

This chart doesn't even support your claim. Again, tax progressiveness is measured by how much you are expected to pay in relation to how much you earn. Your chart shows exactly that; people who earn more pay more, people who are less pay less.

The latest Trump tax cuts has just made a bad system even worse.

Debatable. The way the United States structures its income taxes, capital gains tax, sales tax, and other taxes is still pretty progressive.

MTAtech · May 31, 2018

Hedgology said:
The first chart is inaccurate (or misleading), as it only compares how inequality is reduced in relation to tax transfers. That is not how you measure progressiveness of taxes. A tax is considered "progressive" if the more you earn, the more money you can expect to pay in taxes.

The United States, in that regard, has the most progressive income tax.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-least/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b0d6593115c

What your chart is actually measuring is how effective each government utilizes the tax revenue to lower inequality, which the United States is terrible at. The United States tax system is the most progressive; the spending is not so much.

This chart doesn't even support your claim. Again, tax progressiveness is measured by how much you are expected to pay in relation to how much you earn. Your chart shows exactly that; people who earn more pay more, people who are less pay less.

Debatable. The way the United States structures its income taxes, capital gains tax, sales tax, and other taxes is still pretty progressive.

What's misleading is using the "top 10%" figure. The bulk of the inequality is in the top 1% and top .1% earners. The bottom range of the top 10% are middle class families.

danielpalos · May 31, 2018

Higher paid labor simply pays more in taxes. Stop whining about the poor not paying enough in income taxes, right wingers.

Hedgology · May 31, 2018

MTAtech said:
What's misleading is using the "top 10%" figure. The bulk of the inequality is in the top 1% and top .1% earners. The bottom range of the top 10% are middle class families.

Top 10/Bottom 10 is just a statistical category; people move in-and-out of those income groups all the time. That's not really important. What is important is how progressive the tax system is, and its the most progressive. The more income one earns, the more they are expected to contributed to the tax revenue of the nation.

In a large part, they do; the top 10% contributes to more than 70% of the tax revenue, while the bottom 50% either pays no taxes or receives a tax credit. There are very few systems in the world where this arrangement is possible.

jonny5 · May 31, 2018

MTAtech said:
I think we need to pass the hat around for those poor rich people.

What your statement above does is mix "income taxes" with taxes. That 75% of "all taxes" included Social Security and Medicare taxes -- both the very rich pay little. Yes, the rich pay more than their proportion and they should. I thonk that they should pay even more.

The rich aren't getting anything? They are getting control of the country; a justice system and police that is strong that protects them and their wealth; an educated workforce; and a communications and transportation system that allows them to earn wealth.

We do pass the hat. And the rich overwhelmingly fill it with charitable donations. Furthermore, the rich pay MORE social security and medicare tax than anyone else. Simple math

10,000 X 7.5% = $750
127,000 x 7.5 = $8000

And the rich dont control the country. The people do, and we choose people to represent us in making laws and enforcing them. Everyone gets the exact same opportunity to pay for lawyers, education, communications and transportation.

MTAtech · May 31, 2018

Hedgology said:
Top 10/Bottom 10 is just a statistical category; people move in-and-out of those income groups all the time. That's not really important. What is important is how progressive the tax system is, and its the most progressive. The more income one earns, the more they are expected to contributed to the tax revenue of the nation.

In a large part, they do; the top 10% contributes to more than 70% of the tax revenue, while the bottom 50% either pays no taxes or receives a tax credit. There are very few systems in the world where this arrangement is possible.

People really don't move in-and-out of those income groups all the time. What we have is people near one of those groups crossing a line, say, someone who previously earned $950,000 moving into the plus $1 million group or down from $501,000 to $498,000.

To be in the 10% group at $133,445, based on 2014 tax data. Thus, the top 10% includes police officers and corporate executives who earn tens of millions. Using this wide figure has been used by those trying to bury the very top group in data. A more meaningful measure is looking at the income distribution. As you can see from below, the top 0.1% has been grabbing an ever larger share of income.

share-of-total-us-income-tippy-top-19193-2015-768x424.png

Hedgology · May 31, 2018

MTAtech said:
People really don't move in-and-out of those income groups all the time. What we have is people near one of those groups crossing a line, say, someone who previously earned $950,000 moving into the plus $1 million group or down from $501,000 to $498,000.

This is false. We've tracked income mobility using reported individual tax returns using longitudinal data from the IRS. The most recent study of this from the Treasury was from the time series 1996 - 2005 (as well as from the time series 1987–1996). Generally, very few people remained within the same tax bracket they were in 10 years prior. We also find that people within the bottom income brackets have moved into higher income brackets 10 years later.

Source

To be in the 10% group at $133,445, based on 2014 tax data. Thus, the top 10% includes police officers and corporate executives who earn tens of millions. Using this wide figure has been used by those trying to bury the very top group in data. A more meaningful measure is looking at the income distribution. As you can see from below, the top 0.1% has been grabbing an ever larger share of income.

Looking at share of income is an inaccurate way of tracking income mobility, for the following reasons.

1) It uses snapshot data, which only looks at a distribution. It only tells you that the distribution of income among certain quintiles is shrinking/growing. Is the share of income among the 1% growing because they simply make more money, or is it growing because there are simply more people earning higher income quintiles? Maybe the latter seems to be what is occurring rather than the former.

2) It tracks aggregate income quintiles; however, it does not track individuals.

For example, if I've earned around $60,000 - $67,000 annually for the past 5 years, I can be considered part of the middle class, 3rd quintile or Top 50%, depending on which metric you'd like to use. Year 6, my employers are happy with my performance and they've decided to give me a $60,000 bonus on top of my income, which becomes part of my taxable income. I've now moved at least two different tax brackets and I've become part of the top 20% instead of the top 50% I was prior. The next year, I don't get a bonus. My bonus is not part of my regular income. As a result, I've moved out of the top 20%.

This is what is happening in the economy. People do not remain the tax brackets they were previously, especially years later.

OscarLevant · May 31, 2018

jonny5 said:
The top 1% ARE paying 40% of all income tax, and 75% of all taxes is going to the not rich. The rich arent getting anything. They earn it, and then the govt takes it from them and gives it to someone else.

The debt is not caused by tax cuts or lack of revenue. In 2018 the govt will collect nearly 4 trillion dollars, 18% of every single dollar produced. Thats more than enough.

No, the rich get ahead of taxes and inflation by wealth accumulation via hedging property holdings, the depreciation of which they deduct from taxes, and other various schemes to stay ahead of the game.

It's not about the portion of taxes they pay, it's about what portion of their wealth growth they are paying as taxes, which is small by comparison. While they benefit from inflation via hedging, staying vastly ahead of the taxes they pay, the poor and middle class, who cannot hedge, or not as well, pay the cost of government spending via this inflation and anyone with savings also pays as the erosion of purchasing power ensues.

In this scheme, it is the poor and middle class who wind up footing most of the bill of the cost of society, though indirect, it's real, while the rich come out smelling like ship loads of roses.

It's not about the amount of revenue collected, it's about who bares the burden of cost of society the most, who feels the most pain, and I assure you, it's not the rich. The wealth of the rich, the vast majority of it, is not "earned income".

OscarLevant · May 31, 2018

MTAtech said:
What's misleading is using the "top 10%" figure. The bulk of the inequality is in the top 1% and top .1% earners. The bottom range of the top 10% are middle class families.

The stats for the rich do not measure wealth growth via property holdings, and hedge investments. Factor that in, and the percentage is far less than those on the bottom rungs who are not able to hedge against inflation, etc. The cost burden of society, the pain of that burden, is far more felt by the middle class and poor than it is for the rich.

<alt>doxygen · May 31, 2018

MTAtech said:
People really don't move in-and-out of those income groups all the time. What we have is people near one of those groups crossing a line, say, someone who previously earned $950,000 moving into the plus $1 million group or down from $501,000 to $498,000.

To be in the 10% group at $133,445, based on 2014 tax data. Thus, the top 10% includes police officers and corporate executives who earn tens of millions. Using this wide figure has been used by those trying to bury the very top group in data. A more meaningful measure is looking at the income distribution. As you can see from below, the top 0.1% has been grabbing an ever larger share of income.

Your point is exactly right. The people making out like bandits here are the upper part of the 1%; the.1%. After all of the loopholes, "charity" scams, offshore stashes, etc. that are available to them are accounted for, they pay a far lower % of income in taxes than the others in that top 10%.

Bottom line : Our current system strongly favors those who manipulate money to make more money over those who work for wage income.

jonny5 · May 31, 2018

OscarLevant said:
No, the rich get ahead of taxes and inflation by wealth accumulation via hedging property holdings, the depreciation of which they deduct from taxes, and other various schemes to stay ahead of the game.

It's not about the portion of taxes they pay, it's about what portion of their wealth growth they are paying as taxes, which is small by comparison. While they benefit from inflation via hedging, staying vastly ahead of the taxes they pay, the poor and middle class, who cannot hedge, or not as well, pay the cost of government spending via this inflation and anyone with savings also pays as the erosion of purchasing power ensues.

In this scheme, it is the poor and middle class who wind up footing most of the bill of the cost of society, though indirect, it's real, while the rich come out smelling like ship loads of roses.

It's not about the amount of revenue collected, it's about who bares the burden of cost of society the most, who feels the most pain, and I assure you, it's not the rich. The wealth of the rich, the vast majority of it, is not "earned income".

They get ahead of the game but still pay 40% of the income tax? Why isnt about the total share of the tax burden they pay? They are 1% of the population, and they pay 40x more tax than any other 1% who has the same rights, the same citizenship, the same equality under the law. Why should they pay more than any other citizen? Youre more concerned with feeling good than equality or fairness. Does that seem right?

jonny5 · May 31, 2018

<alt>doxygen said:
Your point is exactly right. The people making out like bandits here are the upper part of the .1%. After all of the loopholes, "charity" scams, offshore stashes, etc. that are available to them are accounted for, they pay a far lower % of income in taxes than the others in that top 10%.

Bottom line : Our current system strongly favors those who manipulate money to make more money over those who work for wage income.

Why does it matter what percent of their income they pay? Are they less equal than any other citizen? Such that they have to pay more for the same govt?

MTAtech · May 31, 2018

Hedgology said:
This is false. We've tracked income mobility using reported individual tax returns using longitudinal data from the IRS. The most recent study of this from the Treasury was from the time series 1996 - 2005 (as well as from the time series 1987–1996). Generally, very few people remained within the same tax bracket they were in 10 years prior. We also find that people within the bottom income brackets have moved into higher income brackets 10 years later.

Source

Looking at share of income is an inaccurate way of tracking income mobility, for the following reasons.

1) It uses snapshot data, which only looks at a distribution. It only tells you that the distribution of income among certain quintiles is shrinking/growing. Is the share of income among the 1% growing because they simply make more money, or is it growing because there are simply more people earning higher income quintiles? Maybe the latter seems to be what is occurring rather than the former.

2) It tracks aggregate income quintiles; however, it does not track individuals.

For example, if I've earned around $60,000 - $67,000 annually for the past 5 years, I can be considered part of the middle class, 3rd quintile or Top 50%, depending on which metric you'd like to use. Year 6, my employers are happy with my performance and they've decided to give me a $60,000 bonus on top of my income, which becomes part of my taxable income. I've now moved at least two different tax brackets and I've become part of the top 20% instead of the top 50% I was prior. The next year, I don't get a bonus. My bonus is not part of my regular income. As a result, I've moved out of the top 20%.

This is what is happening in the economy. People do not remain the tax brackets they were previously, especially years later.

As Paul Krugman pointed out, "the CBO report itself takes that argument on and refutes it. Multi-year measures of inequality, it turns out, aren’t much lower than single-year measures. How is that possible, when many people change income quintiles? Because they’re usually moving short distances on the income scale. A lot of people move from, say, the top of the second quintile to the bottom of the third quintile or vice versa — but such moves are trivial in terms of their true income position. Big moves, jumping more than one quintile, are much less common; yet it’s those big moves people have in mind when they talk about, mobility."link

Hedgology · May 31, 2018

<alt>doxygen said:
Your point is exactly right.

This point is exactly wrong, I've already shown why.

The people making out like bandits here are the upper part of the 1%; the.1%. After all of the loopholes, "charity" scams, offshore stashes, etc. that are available to them are accounted for, they pay a far lower % of income in taxes than the others in that top 10%.

Bottom line : Our current system strongly favors those who manipulate money to make more money over those who work for wage income.

You mean the system that works just fine? You appear to be complaining about legal forms of reducing one tax obligation.

<alt>doxygen · May 31, 2018

jonny5 said:
Why does it matter what percent of their income they pay? Are they less equal than any other citizen? Such that they have to pay more for the same govt?

You either missed the point or are ignoring it. It's about gaming the system in favor of the very upper reaches of society. Since the lower 50% can't pay the bills, more and more of it falls on the portion of that top 10% that isn't able to take advantage of hedges, charity scams or offshore shell games.

I supported the lowering of the corp tax rate included in the Repubs tax bill. What needed to go with that was the removal of most breaks and loopholes that only the upper 1% or so can typically avail themselves of. That was absent for a reason - the Republican donors demanded it.

Kiss conservatism goodye, debt up 84% over last year

jonny5

jonny5

MrWonka

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man

jonny5

MTAtech

MTAtech

Hedgology

MTAtech

Hedgology

MTAtech

danielpalos

Hedgology

jonny5

MTAtech

Hedgology

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"

jonny5

jonny5

MTAtech

Hedgology

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"