Just when I feel a slight tinge of confidence in the Republicans, I read this

[Red Dawn]

Difficult to tell because AMT is in play. Ball park on federal tax alone would be 2500 more. That's 2500 that won't be spent buying things or vacations.

Well that's 2500 that could be going to states like Kentucky who pay in less than they recieve from the Feds.

 

[Jaskalas]

Let's raise taxes in the worst economy since the great depression.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Well that's 2500 that could be going to states like Kentucky who pay in less than they recieve from the Feds.

Why blame the states? Lets take it to the PERSONAL level. If a person is taking in more in taxes than they pay they should pay more. We know you wouldn't support that, yet you post this type of rubbish.

 

[Red Dawn]

Who's blaming the States? Money is needed to do things like build and maintain the infrastructure, this would be a source. Someone spending 2500 on their vacation in Aruba isn't helping our country.

 

[heyheybooboo]

It's not a side argument. It's shows the mind of liberal and progressive thinking and how this kind of thinking must be stopped at all costs. The view that it was their money to begin with and since government spent money they are justified in keeping "their money" and "giving" you some scraps.

Raising taxes right now is about the worst thing you could do for the economy, especially for those that spend money, create jobs, etc. One of the big reasons spending is so low is specifically because of Obama's tax policies and yet he still foolishly holds onto the class warfare for his purposeful destruction of our economy.

You're right; it's not a side argument.

It's just plain Spidey bullshit.




--

 

[Fern]

Let's see, Repubs are against raising taxes on "small businesses".... and the fabulously wealthy because it'll "hurt small businesses," but yet they were against the $40B. for small businesses because it cost too much.

The CBO estimated that extending the cuts for the top 2% (ONLY the top 2%) would cost $100 Billion.

So $40 billion directly to small businesses is too much to pay, but they can forsake $100 billion for the rich, including those who don't employ anyone?

I don't think that's quite right.

Did you know how this $40B so-called help for small businesses was to be spent? The bill called for Uncle Sam to purchase $40B in preferred stock of small banks in hopes small business would benefit. (To be fair there were incentives for loaning to SB)

The Repubs I heard speaking out against the bill were complaining it was just another TARP program.

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

If you have outstanding debt, like we do, yes it is.

No it isn't. The money isn't the gov'ts - it's the earner's.

 

[werepossum]

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true. I know that's the RNC dogma, but actual revenue data shows otherwise.

As has been repeatedly proven in this forum, federal government income tax revenue did NOT go down when taxes were cut. The actual question, which is unknowable and therefore unprovable by either side, is whether or not federal government income tax revenue would have been higher or lower absent a tax cut. Groups against tax cuts take income tax receipts, apply the adjustment that would have resulted at the old tax rate assuming the same economic activity, and call that difference the "cost" of the tax cut. Under that scenario there is no positive effect whatsoever from any tax cut, no tax cut will ever "pay for itself", and the ideal tax rate would be 100%. Groups for tax cuts make an assumption about growth and economic activity without the tax cut, then assign the difference in projected income tax receipts at the lower economic activity level as the benefit of the tax cut. That clearly can be nothing more than a guess.

I agree with Fern and others both that raising taxes on anyone in a recession is a bad idea, and that higher taxes on those making above $250,000 is not something that's going to keep me up at night. I am however very concerned with two things that progressives have slipped into mainstream thought, which I think are immoral and destructive to our nation. The first is that tax cuts have to be "paid for". Progressives have convinced many in our nation that the federal government NOT taking something is actually federal spending, which requires that all money morally belongs first to the federal government. That literally makes us all slaves, chattel to the federal government, and that any part of the wages from our labor that we are allowed to keep is a gift from the federal government. The second thing is the assumption that a legitimate function of government is deciding how much money someone should be allowed to earn, with the associated "right" of government to take whatever fraction it desires of earnings above that. These two concepts are totally in opposition to freedom.

 

[Bowfinger]

As has been repeatedly proven in this forum, federal government income tax revenue did NOT go down when taxes were cut.

Really? Can you give me some links to where this has been "proven"? I enjoy pointing out the holes in arguments "proving" things that are false.

Actual tax revenue data contradicts your claim. While it is true revenues often increase after tax cuts -- they increase almost every year, after cuts, after increases, after taxes are left unchanged -- there are also examples of tax cuts being followed by decreased revenue. The most dramatic example (of the last 50 years, at least) was under GWB, who had an unprecedented four-years of reduced revenue following his tax loans. This has been well documented several times here.

Here are links to two of the more recent threads:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1944068
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1991411
​

One of my comments from one of the threads:

"No it hasn't, as you well know. Record tax revenues for 41 out of 45 years ... and then Bush came in with his costly tax loans and had an unprecedented four year failure to increase revenues. Clinton had record revenues eight of eight years, in spite of his supposedly "huge" tax increases. Bush 41 was either 3 of 4 or 4 for 4 (don't rememebr off the top of my head). Reagan managed seven of eight. Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc., all had record revenues most years, through tax increases and tax cuts alike. Only Bush 43 showed such dismal performance.

"That doesn't prove cause and effect, of course, but it nicely refutes the myth that tax cuts increase revenues. They didn't for Bush 43, and that's a fact."
​

Here's the actual data from the CBO. See page 26 for the relevant data:

http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/hist.pdf
​

The actual question, which is unknowable and therefore unprovable by either side, is whether or not federal government income tax revenue would have been higher or lower absent a tax cut.

Very much agree. Unfortunately, the tax cut zealots generally point to increased tax revenues as "proof" tax cuts increase revenue ... while ignoring the contrary examples and the fact that tax revenues almost always increase, including after tax increases.

Groups against tax cuts take income tax receipts, apply the adjustment that would have resulted at the old tax rate assuming the same economic activity, and call that difference the "cost" of the tax cut. Under that scenario there is no positive effect whatsoever from any tax cut, no tax cut will ever "pay for itself", and the ideal tax rate would be 100%. Groups for tax cuts make an assumption about growth and economic activity without the tax cut, then assign the difference in projected income tax receipts at the lower economic activity level as the benefit of the tax cut. That clearly can be nothing more than a guess.

I can't speak to what these "groups" purportedly try to show. It has nothing to do with anything offered in this thread, however.

I agree with Fern and others both that raising taxes on anyone in a recession is a bad idea, and that higher taxes on those making above $250,000 is not something that's going to keep me up at night.

I generally agree with this. Ideally, in a recession we want to put as much money as possible into the economy which means lower taxes and deficit spending by Uncle Sam is reasonable. Unfortunately, our debt has grown so high that increased deficit spending may be even worse. We have to reduce the deficit somehow, and increased taxes on those who can best afford it seems like a reasonable concession.

I am however very concerned with two things that progressives have slipped into mainstream thought, which I think are immoral and destructive to our nation. The first is that tax cuts have to be "paid for". Progressives have convinced many in our nation that the federal government NOT taking something is actually federal spending, which requires that all money morally belongs first to the federal government. That literally makes us all slaves, chattel to the federal government, and that any part of the wages from our labor that we are allowed to keep is a gift from the federal government. The second thing is the assumption that a legitimate function of government is deciding how much money someone should be allowed to earn, with the associated "right" of government to take whatever fraction it desires of earnings above that. These two concepts are totally in opposition to freedom.

I can't speak for everyone, but those seem like gross distortions of the positions of most people I know, to the point I think they can be characterized as straw man arguments.

 

[werepossum]

Really? Can you give me some links to where this has been "proven"? I enjoy pointing out the holes in arguments "proving" things that are false.

Actual tax revenue data contradicts your claim. While it is true revenues often increase after tax cuts -- they increase almost every year, after cuts, after increases, after taxes are left unchanged -- there are also examples of tax cuts being followed by decreased revenue. The most dramatic example (of the last 50 years, at least) was under GWB, who had an unprecedented four-years of reduced revenue following his tax loans. This has been well documented several times here.

Here are links to two of the more recent threads:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1944068
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1991411
​

One of my comments from one of the threads:

"No it hasn't, as you well know. Record tax revenues for 41 out of 45 years ... and then Bush came in with his costly tax loans and had an unprecedented four year failure to increase revenues. Clinton had record revenues eight of eight years, in spite of his supposedly "huge" tax increases. Bush 41 was either 3 of 4 or 4 for 4 (don't rememebr off the top of my head). Reagan managed seven of eight. Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc., all had record revenues most years, through tax increases and tax cuts alike. Only Bush 43 showed such dismal performance.

"That doesn't prove cause and effect, of course, but it nicely refutes the myth that tax cuts increase revenues. They didn't for Bush 43, and that's a fact."
​

Here's the actual data from the CBO. See page 26 for the relevant data:

http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/hist.pdf
​

Very much agree. Unfortunately, the tax cut zealots generally point to increased tax revenues as "proof" tax cuts increase revenue ... while ignoring the contrary examples and the fact that tax revenues almost always increase, including after tax increases.


I can't speak to what these "groups" purportedly try to show. It has nothing to do with anything offered in this thread, however.


I generally agree with this. Ideally, in a recession we want to put as much money as possible into the economy which means lower taxes and deficit spending by Uncle Sam is reasonable. Unfortunately, our debt has grown so high that increased deficit spending may be even worse. We have to reduce the deficit somehow, and increased taxes on those who can best afford it seems like a reasonable concession.


I can't speak for everyone, but those seem like gross distortions of the positions of most people I know, to the point I think they can be characterized as straw man arguments.

You're right, there was a dip in 2002 that didn't recover until 2005. Of course, there was that little incident with the Religion of Peace in 2001, so it wasn't all tax cuts, but I was wrong, federal tax receipts did go down. (I characterize that as a good thing, but it wasn't what I said.) Of course tax cuts would never immediately increase receipts, as the increased economic activity will take some time to overcome the direct loss of tax revenue. And it's certainly debatable if tax cuts ever pay for themselves; the Fed will hold growth to a few percent to fight inflation, so no tax cut can cause more than a couple percent increase in the GDP. That might change as the Carter years recede from memory.

I don't see how you can characterize my other points as straw men though, when any public debate on taxes includes demands that tax cuts be "paid for".

 

[cKGunslinger]

Let's raise taxes in the worst economy since the great depression.

Since there were no matching budget cuts to match Bush's tax cuts, they are essentially an unfunded, $2.5 TRILLION stimulus package over their life. (PDF)

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48
trillion over the 2001-2010 period. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results
directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the
national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.

So what you Republicans are saying is that you want Obama to pass a new stimulus package? That's odd.. weren't you just complaining when he did do that?

So is it really all semantics and PR? D:

 

[Dekasa]

Tax cuts aren't spending.

 

[EXman]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/13/obama.economy/index.html?hpt=T2



For once Obama is actually being more fiscally Conservative than Republicans. Admittedly this money will probably go to help pay for his pet projects but it's at least a step in the right direction. I'm sorry, but if you're making 250k a year in this economy you are not "suffering". There is a point of diminishing returns where tax cuts simply make the rich richer without prompting them to spend more money/energize the economy, something a lot of Republicans seemingly refuse to realize.

I used to think this then i realized that the 250kers are the small business owner down the street the one who is trying to hire and expand his business. How did 250k become a millionair? Sure they might be making that but they are also a HUGE force in reinvesting in small business. You know the place where there is negative job growth? Obama is being Clintonian about the polls is all. I've seen 6 ads run by Dems throwing Obama and/or Pelosi under the bus because they have wrecked the already bad economy more and piled on debt like pelosi does makeup. Don't have a gut instinct look at the facts.

 

[EXman]

Since there were no matching budget cuts to match Bush's tax cuts, they are essentially an unfunded, $2.5 TRILLION stimulus package over their life. (PDF)



So is it really all semantics and PR? D:

UNFUNDED???

That is a myth. Or rather your semantics. You don't fund tax cuts that is the big lie. The money is not theirs to start with. I know you will think that is crazy talk but that kind of thinking is what got a large part of our population underwater by counting on making more money and not less.

I'd still rather have a large amount of real actual people with a 2.5 trillion stimulus as you would put it. The Government buys $800 hammers and toilet seats still.

 

[cKGunslinger]

UNFUNDED???

That is a myth. Or rather your semantics. You don't fund tax cuts that is the big lie. The money is not theirs to start with. I know you will think that is crazy talk but that kind of thinking is what got a large part of our population underwater by counting on making more money and not less.

I'd still rather have a large amount of real actual people with a 2.5 trillion stimulus as you would put it. The Government buys $800 hammers and toilet seats still.

You also don't take a huge pay cut then go out and finance a house, a boat, and two wars.. err.. cars. That's completely irresponsible, that that has *nothing* to do with semantics.

 

[her209]

Tax cuts aren't spending.

Tax increases aren't spending. Spending is spending.

 

[ebaycj]

Difficult to tell because AMT is in play. Ball park on federal tax alone would be 2500 more. That's 2500 that won't be spent buying things or vacations.

But it could be spent paying down our debt thereby making future tax dollars more effective (lower debt = less interest cost per year).

 

[ebaycj]

Tax cuts are not a cost. There is not a cost to tax cuts. Letting people keep the money they earn is not a cost nor is it spending.

As I said above, and you failed to address:

When you have debt, the spending is being done automatically by interest payments. Increasing taxes to reduce that principal balance makes sense because it makes future tax dollars more effective (once balance is paid, interest cost goes away, those dollars can then be used for something else, like reducing taxes).

For the record, "We the people" owe over 43,000 per man, woman, and child in the USA. And we are paying interest on it. (math was: 13,465,852,000,000 / 300.000.000, source was USDebtClock.org )

That needs to be stopped, just like irresponsible idiots with their 5/1 interest-only ARMs and 6-figure credit card debt with a 50,000 per year job. One way to stop it is to raise taxes. The other way to stop it is to cut spending. Both need to be done.

 

[ebaycj]

Well that's 2500 that could be going to states like Kentucky who pay in less than they recieve from the Feds.

Interesting that when I was checking USDebtClock.org for the National Debt figures, in the upper left corner of the page was a "State: Worst Debt-to-GDP ratio" figure.

Guess who was on top? Kentucky.

Failstate.

 

[Craig234]

Tax cuts aren't spending.

So it's really too much for you and others on the right that while for a person, there's 'income' from an employer and 'expenses' from spending and taxes, and for a business there's 'income' from customers and 'expenses' from things they spend on and taxes, that for the government there's 'income' from taxes and 'expenses' from what they spend; and that if a person tells his employer ro reduce his salary, or a business lowers prices, or the government cuts taxes, all of those reduce income, and are an 'expense' in terms of balancing their books.

So if a business says, 'let's cut our prices 10 percent', it makes sense for someone to say 'can we AFFORD that big of an EXPENSE? We'll take a LOSS if we do that'.

Who does this business think it is, doesn't it get it's the *customer's money*, so cutting prices isn't an expense?

And a government says 'let's cut taxes 10%', someone says 'can we AFFORD that big of an EXPENSE on balancing our books? We'll increase the DEFICIT if we do that.'

There's this funny little math rule: a dollar is a dollar.

So if the business says "let's spend $1000 on advertising", or it says "let's spend $1000 on price cuts", each of those costs a remarkably similar amount to the business and can be called 'expense', even though technically one is spending money and one is cutting income - they have the same effect (directly, not the indirect effect on sale) on the budget.

For the government, taxing $1000 less or spending $1000 less has the same (direct) effect on the deficit.

The right likes to use hyperbole to push its agenda, and pretend it's news that one is spending and the other cutting income, to refer to every dollar legally taxed as 'theft', and so on.

It's not honest nor accurate. I also don't recall 1 in 100 posts by the right on spending mentioning any benefit of it, unless it's denying most or all benefit.

So if a dollar spent generates more than a dollar back, they call it 'waste', but they'll claim a dollar in tax cuts that generates only 22 cents back 'doesn't reduce revenue' or even increases it.

The big lie applies here, they just repeat the rhetoric and don't pay attention to any facts.

Save234

 

[ebaycj]

No it isn't. The money isn't the gov'ts - it's the earner's.

So who exactly is responsible for the country's debt, if not it's citizenry ?

We elected those responsible for the CAUSES of the debt, but they certainly cannot be held accountable for the debt on their own (i.e. Pelosi owes $X, Reid owes $Y), since they were acting in an official capacity on our behalf.

If this was an individual debt you would be railing on that person for how irresponsible they were with their credit card. But it's not.

So again, who exactly is responsible for covering the debt?

 

[Craig234]

One way to stop it is to raise taxes. The other way to stop it is to cut spending. Both need to be done.

Yup - but the important thing is WHOSE taxes and WHICH spending.

We can further concentrate wealth, or we can have responsible policies benefitting the country.

 

[Anarchist420]

They ought to go somewhere between the Bush income tax levels and the Clinton income tax levels while repealing the corporate tax and cutting 800B-1T/yr in spending. That's realistic enough, even for Obama to do. He's certainly smart enough to do that.

 

[Vette73]

I used to think this then i realized that the 250kers are the small business owner down the street the one who is trying to hire and expand his business. How did 250k become a millionair? Sure they might be making that but they are also a HUGE force in reinvesting in small business. You know the place where there is negative job growth? Obama is being Clintonian about the polls is all. I've seen 6 ads run by Dems throwing Obama and/or Pelosi under the bus because they have wrecked the already bad economy more and piled on debt like pelosi does makeup. Don't have a gut instinct look at the facts.

You do know that taxs are on the PROFIT of a business, not its sales. Most major business's have so many loopholes/breaks/etc... that even if they make billions in profits they pay about half of the tax rate that is listed.
Not that you are one to believe the BS that some groups and republicans are running on TV and Radio right?

 

[EXman]

Yup - but the important thing is WHOSE taxes and WHICH spending.

We can further concentrate wealth, or we can have responsible policies benefitting the country.

You all do not understand a thing if the people who make jobs have less. They cannot reinvest that $ into their biz and create more jobs. As Costs get higher and the gov't demands more $ out of the biz they have to more operations/jobs elsewhere.

Do we want Washington to centeralize our power and spend/invest our money wisely? How is that working for us? How is that working for California?

Class warfare as usual. Penalize the people who produce give to those who leech and work the system. How has that worked with our manufacturing sector?

I dare you even to play Simcity you could learn the basics of economics.