How can Obamanomics play out?

[birdog1960]

It's Ronald Reagan.

it's (sic)

[DC Tom]

it's (sic)

 

Unbelievable...

[3rdnlng]

Didn't notice it but that's truly embarrassing.

[GG]

posted a link last week in the "who raised taxes...regan (sic)" thread. see post #37 "the truth about taxes" from business insider. look though the tables linked to the article.

 

Yup, and those links are worthless without knowing the full tax tables, especially what constitutes a person's Taxable Income. Far more useful data are the effective tax rates, which historically have been around 20%, and have also been the norm even in the evil Reagan & Bush II regimes. Yet it doesn't stop the opportunists from jumping on the 70% marginal rate as the effective rate. What's missing from the tables are the comparisons of tax rates & GDP. I wonder if that's also why JFK argued for lower taxes, why Clinton lowered the cap gains tax and good ol' Ronnie dropped taxes to 28%, but also reformed the tax code to eliminate wasteful tax shelters.

 

The WSJ article is precisely correct in pointing out those distinctions, which are usually lost on the medical profession.

Edited July 18, 2011 by GG

[IDBillzFan]

You got links to prove it?

Hang on. Let me check the Paul Krugman archives. I'll be right back.

[birdog1960]

Hang on. Let me check the Paul Krugman archives. I'll be right back.

yeah, henry blodget is a prototypical socialist.

[GG]

yeah, henry blodget is a prototypical socialist.

 

Doesn't detract from your cherry-picking of his story. Since he cited the Tax Foundation as a source, I'm assuming that you're ok with their data. So why not go to this:

 

Tax/GDP

 

Doesn't get more clear than that in showing the danger of relying on one group for the vast majority of the tax take. Even though tax rates are the same in the graphed period, 2009 shows a huge drop. Now why is that?

[birdog1960]

Doesn't detract from your cherry-picking of his story. Since he cited the Tax Foundation as a source, I'm assuming that you're ok with their data. So why not go to this:

 

Tax/GDP

 

Doesn't get more clear than that in showing the danger of relying on one group for the vast majority of the tax take. Even though tax rates are the same in the graphed period, 2009 shows a huge drop. Now why is that?

no mention of the years we were discussing. goes back only to 2002. and ,OMG, the top 10% pays 70% of taxes!! gasp! but what % of wealth do they hold?

 

if you looked at Blodget's conclusion, i would think i underemphasized his points rather than cherry picking.

[GG]

no mention of the years we were discussing. goes back only to 2002. and ,OMG, the top 10% pays 70% of taxes!! gasp! but what % of wealth do they hold?

 

if you looked at Blodget's conclusion, i would think i underemphasized his points rather than cherry picking.

 

Of course it's not like you to miss the point. The value of that graph is that even though the tax tables have been the same during the 7 sampled years, revenues fell. Now why is that, if manipulating tax rates are supposed to be the savior?

 

His conclusions are based on the false premise that marginal rates are important for anything but political pandering. Read the comments on the site, where informed people are taking him to task for a half-baked article.

[birdog1960]

Of course it's not like you to miss the point. The value of that graph is that even though the tax tables have been the same during the 7 sampled years, revenues fell. Now why is that, if manipulating tax rates are supposed to be the savior?

maybe because those tax policies with historically low tax rates for high wealth individuals (similar to those before the depression) aren't working and actually slowing the economy. as blodget points out, it's eerily similar to the conditions in place before the great depression.

[TPS]

Doesn't detract from your cherry-picking of his story. Since he cited the Tax Foundation as a source, I'm assuming that you're ok with their data. So why not go to this:

 

Tax/GDP

 

Doesn't get more clear than that in showing the danger of relying on one group for the vast majority of the tax take. Even though tax rates are the same in the graphed period, 2009 shows a huge drop. Now why is that?

uhhh...because unemployment more than doubled. That was easy.

 

And I hope that you would know by now that the government uses payroll tax revenues just like income tax revenues, so the old 10% pays 70% of taxes is BS. In fact, income tax revenues and payroll tax revenues are almost equal now as a % of gdp.

 

As for the Kennedy tax cuts, they were made based on standard Keynesian theory that lowering taxes increases disposable income and consumption. Personal and corporate taxes were also cut to offset the fact that tax brackets weren't adjusted for the cpi back the--the so-called "bracket creep" problem creating "fiscal drag."

[GG]

uhhh...because unemployment more than doubled. That was easy.

 

And raising taxes will do wonders to get those jobs back.

 

And I hope that you would know by now that the government uses payroll tax revenues just like income tax revenues, so the old 10% pays 70% of taxes is BS. In fact, income tax revenues and payroll tax revenues are almost equal now as a % of gdp.

 

They're almost equal because the incomes from the top earners have fallen, and the tax code's reliance on them had the disproportionate fall in income tax revenues. Total SSI & Medicare tax didn't fall nearly at the same rate as the income tax take. And since employers pay 50% of the payroll tax, I can still argue that the top 10% pay a very high portion.

 

As for the Kennedy tax cuts, they were made based on standard Keynesian theory that lowering taxes increases disposable income and consumption. Personal and corporate taxes were also cut to offset the fact that tax brackets weren't adjusted for the cpi back the--the so-called "bracket creep" problem creating "fiscal drag."

 

So you agree with Laffer?

[TPS]

And raising taxes will do wonders to get those jobs back.

In the next go round regarding expiration of the Bush tax cuts, I'd let the top rate expire and retain the rest. If I were czar, I'd suggest something completely different which would probably surprise you.

 

They're almost equal because the incomes from the top earners have fallen, and the tax code's reliance on them had the disproportionate fall in income tax revenues. Total SSI & Medicare tax didn't fall nearly at the same rate as the income tax take. And since employers pay 50% of the payroll tax, I can still argue that the top 10% pay a very high portion.

Both factors were important. 6-7 million people were/are no longer paying taxes, sales were down, and asset prices fell.

 

 

So you agree with Laffer?

How many times did I tell you that tax cuts stimulate the economy by creating deficits? Laffer argued the main impact of lower taxes would be to increase savings, investment and work effort, thus increasing revenues, so there would be no deficit.

 

Have we been arguing about this for 15 years now? God, I hope we don't end up in the same nursing home...

[pBills]

Funny thing is that the Republicans can't even compromise one little bit. 3 trillion in spending cuts offered for 1 trillion in revenue. So even at 3-1, the right receiving the spending cuts they desire... never admitting that this issue is two fold. They still can't offer the revenue increase through closing loop holes, pulling back tax breaks for corporations, etc.

 

Being able to compromise is truly a sign of being able to lead and govern correctly. But wait, they signed a pledge.

Edited July 19, 2011 by pBills

[/dev/null]

Funny thing is that the Republicans can't even compromise one little bit. 3 trillion in spending cuts offered for 1 trillion in revenue. So even at 3-1, the right receiving the spending cuts they desire... never admitting that this issue is two fold. They still can't offer the revenue increase through closing loop holes, pulling back tax breaks for corporations, etc.

 

Being able to compromise is truly a sign of being able to lead and govern correctly. But wait, they signed a pledge.

 

The problem with the 3-1 deal is that the tax increases take effect much sooner than the spending cuts. And we all know that when the cuts are coming due somebody in DC will find a way to either prevent the cuts or propose a new program to offset the cuts

[birdog1960]

 

 

Have we been arguing about this for 15 years now? God, I hope we don't end up in the same nursing home...

[pBills]

The problem with the 3-1 deal is that the tax increases take effect much sooner than the spending cuts. And we all know that when the cuts are coming due somebody in DC will find a way to either prevent the cuts or propose a new program to offset the cuts

 

 

I still see no reason to keep them off the table completely. No reason to NOT close loop holes and remove tax breaks for corporations. Bottom line is that both spending cuts AND revenue need to be addressed. We can not move forward without having both on the table, no matter the timing.

 

I understand that people could be worried about someone later on in DC devising a plan to skirt the cuts and that should be addressed. However, we ought to also devise a plan to help prevent corporations from avoiding by going overseas.

[birdog1960]

No reason to NOT close loop holes and remove tax breaks for corporations.

 

. However, we ought to also devise a plan to help prevent corporations from avoiding by going overseas.

aint gonna happen the golden rule is alive and well in the US of A. those with the gold rule.

[Joe Miner]

I still see no reason to keep them off the table completely. No reason to NOT close loop holes and remove tax breaks for corporations. Bottom line is that both spending cuts AND revenue need to be addressed. We can not move forward without having both on the table, no matter the timing.

 

I understand that people could be worried about someone later on in DC devising a plan to skirt the cuts and that should be addressed. However, we ought to also devise a plan to help prevent corporations from avoiding by going overseas.

 

Couldn't the Dems just as easily take the highroad, pass some cuts, get the debt ceiling raised, and then come back later with a bill that adjusts taxes?

[IDBillzFan]

3 trillion in spending cuts offered for 1 trillion in revenue. So even at 3-1, the right receiving the spending cuts they desire... never admitting that this issue is two fold. They still can't offer the revenue increase through closing loop holes, pulling back tax breaks for corporations, etc.

Can you show me the details of this plan? Who proposed it? Where will we find the $3T cuts? What are these cuts, specifically? How fast will the cuts take place? When was this proposal put on the table? How many Republicans voted against it? When did the vote take place?

 

Could you please answer these questions. Based on your comments above, it should be VERY easy for you to provide links to the proposal and who in the GOP voted against it.

 

Thank you in advance.