Thread: The strongest economy in the world

Democrats hire firm that pays sub-standard wages to campaign for...raising the minimum wage.

The Daily Page: Document Feed

Can't. Stop. Laughing.

For my boy surely a sadsack :

How About That...

By Matt Margolis


So much for the Democrats' claims that Bush's tax cuts were for the rich. According to this article at OpinionJournal.com, "the Bush years compare very well by tax and income equality to the sainted Clinton era."

...[T]he new data show that the bottom 50% of Americans in income--U.S. households with an income below the median of $44,389--paid a smaller share of total income taxes in 2004 (3.3%) than in Bill Clinton's last year in office (3.9%). That 3.3% is the lowest share of total income taxes paid by the bottom half of earners in at least 30 years, and probably ever. The majority of American families with an income below $40,000 pay no income tax at all today, and many of them also get a welfare subsidy from the Earned Income Tax Credit that effectively offsets much of what they pay in payroll taxes.
By contrast, Americans with an income in the top 1% paid 36.9% of all federal income taxes in 2004, down slightly from 37.4% at what was the height of the dot-com boom in 2000. But the top 5% and 10% of earners saw an increase in their tax share over that same period, with the top 5%'s share rising to 57.1% in 2004 from 56.5% in 2000. If this isn't the definition of a highly "progressive," a k a redistributionist, tax code, we don't know what is.

Will this stop liberals from claiming that Bush has only been good for the rich? No. Of course not. They still can't admit the economy is in good shape.

I think it's wrong to tax people at a higher rate simply because they have more.

Everyone should pay the same rate.

I'll bet that scares the hell out of you.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Will this stop liberals from claiming that Bush has only been good for the rich? No. Of course not. They still can't admit the economy is in good shape

^ is the economy in good shape at the bottom of your ship ? I bet it is.

Originally Posted by surasak

I'll bet that scares the hell out of you.

What brought you to that conclusion ?

Originally Posted by surasak

Everyone should pay the same rate

Why ? what would be the justification for this ?

Scenario:

You, I, and Storekeeper are standing in line to buy a Coke. I own my own business, I make $100,000 per year. You go to college, you work part-time and make $10,000 per year. Storekeeper swabs decks and makes $30,000 per year.

How much do we each pay for the Coke?

wrong analogy. How about that one ?

To run your business, you need more water, use the roads more often, more electricity. Your actions wear down the "infrastructure". Should we all pay equal amount of tax to cover those wears ? should SK as an unemployed student be liable on the same percentage level for your actions ? certainly not

That's a really poor analogy as all those services are 'pay as you go.'

Answer my question and we'll continue.

Originally Posted by surasak

Storekeeper swabs decks and makes $30,000 per year.

If that's all the Navy paid me I'd have been driving trucks over a decade ago for that kinda chump change.

I'm a Sk, remember ... I get my cokes free.

Originally Posted by surasak

Democrats hire firm that pays sub-standard wages to campaign for...raising the minimum wage.

The Daily Page: Document Feed

Can't. Stop. Laughing.

Thanks for the link I'll green you when I can.


I say go with a national sales tax. You pay according to your rate of consumption. If it's discriminatory against the poor then raise the amount of their subsidy to offset the sales tax they pay.

Which is what I was getting to above. All three people go through the line and pay the same exact amount for the Coke...including sales tax...regardless of their income or ability to pay. We don't make one person pay a higher amount for the Coke or a higher tax, and, we don't allow another a discount based on income.

That's how it should be. No income tax and a universal sales tax with certain exceptions such as medicines, unprocessed food, etc.

Originally Posted by surasak

That's a really poor analogy as all those services are 'pay as you go.'

No, it's one you don't agree with and you try to twist your logic to fit an irresponsible agenda, same tax rate for everyone. It just doesn't work.

I don't support high taxes on middle class, I am for tax break on small businesses and small owners, but the extremly rich (The Bush Family as an example) should be HIGHLY tax with no escape. How many Ferraris do you need to buy to be happy ? at a certain level, the Bill Gates et al, should "surrender" their wealth to the public. You don't get that kind of wealth without "abusing" the system. The small guys should be given a break until a certain level. But Big Corps and millionaires should bear the highest burden possible.

Originally Posted by surasak

That's how it should be. No income tax and a universal sales tax with certain exceptions such as medicines, unprocessed food, etc.

How about a progressive tax on what you spend on a yearly basis ? those who work hard and save, will not pay much, while others who have "spending" addictions would be taxed to death. The millionaires with all their Ferraris will pay the most.

Problem is it will never happen as it would desroy consumption. Which brings an interesting question: what are the main driving forces of our economy ? the ability to "produce" income ? or the ability to "spend" that income ? which incentives should we tax ? which incentive is more important ? and again which incintive is more central to our economy ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

No, it's one you don't agree with and you try to twist your logic to fit an irresponsible agenda, same tax rate for everyone. It just doesn't work.

Can't you think for yourself ? Quit copying my responses from other threads to surasak.

^ He is a conservative, nobody is perfect

Despite that, he is a honnest debater and very articulate. Just having an argument with him about taxes. We can't agree on everything, can we ? I am sure I can agree with you on some other topics.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ He is a conservative, nobody is perfect

Despite that, he is a honnest debater and very articulate. Just having an argument with him about taxes. We can't agree on everything, can we ? I am sure I can agree with you on some other topics.

I won't argue that. I'll even agree. Just because it sounds good doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

One thing is for sure ... he never disproved my theory that he doesn't have a real good grasp of statistical concepts.

Tomorrow he'll be agreeing with some poll saying George Bush has three dicks ... but he won't really know why he agrees.

Did anybody read the article in the Internationa Herals Tribune today?

The younger generations (younger than me) are screwed.

So where is the growth going ? could the higher productivity means less jobs for many and that would lower the median ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by surasak

That's how it should be. No income tax and a universal sales tax with certain exceptions such as medicines, unprocessed food, etc.

How about a progressive tax on what you spend on a yearly basis ? those who work hard and save, will not pay much, while others who have "spending" addictions would be taxed to death. The millionaires with all their Ferraris will pay the most.

The whole idea of a sales tax is to encourage savings (of which Americans do very little to none of). By switching from an income tax to a sales tax people become less and less slaves to teh government and more in control of what they pay.

I simply disagree with changing tax rates based on income or wealth levels. All other taxes are the same regardless of wealth (state and local sales taxes, so-called bed or tourist taxes, stamps, gasoline taxes, etc).

Problem is it will never happen as it would desroy consumption. Which brings an interesting question: what are the main driving forces of our economy ? the ability to "produce" income ? or the ability to "spend" that income ? which incentives should we tax ? which incentive is more important ? and again which incintive is more central to our economy ?

It won't destroy consumption. As you suggesting that taking money before a person has a chance to save it actually encourages consumption.

Think about it. A person makes $30,000 and pays $6,000 in combined taxes (state and federal income). Someone like that doesn't make enough to buy a house, so, the so-called mortgage deduction is out of reach. What happens is this person ends up subsiziding someone else's mortgage by paying a higher marginal tax rate than someone who can afford a mortgage (mortgage deductions are a massive form of government welfare in the United States).

Now, change the scenario. The person making $30,000 per year suddenly gets an additional $115 per weekly paycheck. You telling me he's really going to start consuming less because he suddenly has more money?

Get rid of the entire tax system (which puts a huge burden on employers, Americans, and inflates everything you buy with hidden costs), make it simple, and let the people decide.

The guy who buys those Ferraris every year is going to pay for the 'luxury' of buying them. And he's still going to pay taxes at the pump like everyone else.

Consumers drive 2/3 of all economic activity (consumption) while the goverment consumes the remaining 1/3.

Let's look at this this way: in 2005 the combined estimate income of all households was $4.3 trillion dollars. The GDP in 2005 was about $12.41 trillion. The U.S. budget for 2005 was $2.4 trillion. Tax receipts in 2005 totaled about $2.05 trillion (about $1 trillion in personal income taxes, about $800 billion in so-called retirement taxes, and around $250 billion in corporate taxes). This means about 16.5% of the GDP goes to paying taxes.

Of household income above the marginal direct income tax rate becomes about 25% and the retirement tax burden about 18% (in reality employers pay half and workers pay half, but, seld-employed pay the whole burden...I'm tacking on the whole amount since we end up paying it indirectly). So, the average American is already paying around 43% of their income to fund the government.

In contrast, as 16.5% of the GDP, the tax burden becomes less because it's a measure of economic performance versus taxes...in other words, the value of goods and services produced each year. A hidden sales tax, so to speak.

The inherent unfairness about the current tax structure is that the more wealthy pay higher taxes. Well, even in a flat tax structure the wealthy will pay more anyways. But, in the current system the wealthy are able to exploit loopholes not available to many people....multiple home mortgage deductions, capital gains (which have lower rates than income tax rates), etc. Get rid of all that and you end up with the wealthy paying what they should instead of what you think they should.

I think if everyone pays the same tax rate at the local 7-11 then everyone should pay the same tax rates on their wealth. A flat national sales tax and no income taxes. I've lived in states with income taxes and sales taxes, states with no income tax and a sales tax, and, states with no sales taxes but income taxes. I much prefer the sales tax only.

^ well, very comprehensive explanation you have here. Excellent analysis here. I think your approach is fair and square except that it's not about being fair and square.

Should the "insanely" rich be treated fair and square ? fuck me they shouldn't. There is always a suspicion about "insanely" rich people. They can't reach that level without abuses. It's those "alleged" abuses that you make them pay for. It's because they abuse society, that they should be more in tax rate. It's punitives. Now the question is: does this punitive system works ? and does it have more negative effects on the whole economy ? I seriously doubt it has a negative impact. But does it work ? That's where I join your analysis about loopholes etc... you are correct. The "insanely" rich don't pay that much taxes, and pay the amount they should be taxed to their tax lawyers instead. This is insane.

Your arguments about a fair tax system only make sense in the name of "simplicity" and to force all those "millionaires" not benefiting from those loopholes. Maybe a "convenient" trade off for everybody. Despite that reality, I still think we should remove all loopholes regardless and tax the extreme rich at the highest rate possible (50%). That or give it to "real" charity or public funds.

Well, think of it this way. When I lived in Florida there was no income taxes. Oregon has an income tax but no sales tax. Washington has no income taxes but has a sales tax. The argument is that in Florida the tourists pay for services from tax receipts on hotel rooms, etc. Well, Washington state isn't a tourist mecca so the argument doesn't hold there.

Of the three states the worst one in terms of government and infrastructure is Oregon by far. The roads are a mess, schools are crowded, and many people here don't have state-funded health insurance (especiallly children). Yet we give millions away in free tax credits just to encourage new factories to relocate here. The elimination of income taxes would get rid of that corporate welfare system as well.

Now, I don't know about the social system in WA but in Florida the roads are good and the schools not so overcrowded. And it's accomplished with no income taxes. A fair sales tax system and property taxes fund all government in WA and in FL.

The idea of simplicity also makes for savings in terms of eliminating the IRS, no more audits, no more tax courts, no more money spent on tax services, software, etc. And, it gets rid of the home mortgage welfare system which is an expensive burden on the federal budget. There's no reason why there should be loopholes, deductions, exemptions, credits, anything. The only thing that needs to be added for fairness would be something that gives low wage earners a free pass on sales taxes (much like I get when I travel to WA..I never had to pay sales taxes because I'm not a WA resident). There's little point to taxing those who have little to nothing.

More bad news, the middle class is getting squeezed....by higher energy costs (thanks to the war on terror), a deflating housing market, and increasing interest on mortgages and loans (thanks again to Bush).

WP: Will 'mortgage moms' tilt vote? - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

Global Economic Forecast Predicts Solid Growth in U.S. By Matt Margolis



More good news that Democrats will ignore...

"Europe's strong economic upturn is likely to lose some momentum late this year, but growth could pick up in the U.S. and Japan, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In its interim assessment of the outlook for the world's biggest industrialized economies, the Paris-based think tank raised its projection for economic growth this year in the 12-nation euro zone to 2.7% from an earlier forecast of 2.2%. It stuck to its view that the U.S. economy will expand by 3.6% this year but cut its forecast for economic growth in Japan to 2.5% from 2.8%.

But strong U.S. consumer spending points to robust growth during the third quarter despite recent weakness in the home-building sector, the report said."