Next Time, Let's Elect Adults!

[Nanker]

No, Toilet Paper Storage, you didn't "Say" that, but you said as much. You want to cut/eliminate the payroll tax for the lower x% of folks so they'll run right out and spend it willy nilly on peanut butter or crack, or whatever. You want them to keep all of their "earnings" because they'll spend it and "stimulate" the economy. Then, after decades of not putting anything into the funding of the government, and likely getting money back all the while, they're going to want a fully funded SS retirement. Oh, but wait - they pay gasoline taxes. So that covers their skin in the game angle.

[TPS]

This is when I start pulling my hair out at you guys attributing more power to the Fed over the private sector than warranted. The interest policies had a marginal effect during dot coms, because equities were generating far greater returns, and the belief that that bubble would have burst sooner if Greenspan raised rates was laughable because you didn't have a run up in debt up to 2000 to fund the equity purchases.

 

Again, if interest policy was the super tonic, we'd be doing the fourth victory lap of the Summers of Recovery.

 

And I don't disagree that SS is part of the general fund, and you won't find me misusing the 47% figure. But the bottom line is that the tax base needs to broaden to eliminate the revenue swings.

You miss the point. The point is that unemployment of 4% vs 6% was a huge cause of the surpluses.

 

No, Toilet Paper Storage, you didn't "Say" that, but you said as much. You want to cut/eliminate the payroll tax for the lower x% of folks so they'll run right out and spend it willy nilly on peanut butter or crack, or whatever. You want them to keep all of their "earnings" because they'll spend it and "stimulate" the economy. Then, after decades of not putting anything into the funding of the government, and likely getting money back all the while, they're going to want a fully funded SS retirement. Oh, but wait - they pay gasoline taxes. So that covers their skin in the game angle.

Ahhh...reminds me of school days...it's been used before, so to speak....

I love it when people tell you what you are saying...

I'm saying government did not have to raise rates in the 1980s, because the PayGo system was sufficient to cover at the current rates. I'm not saying no SS taxes--"read my lips!"

[keepthefaith]

You miss the point. The point is that unemployment of 4% vs 6% was a huge cause of the surpluses.

 

 

 

The Tech boom in the 90's was a great economic time. So we all agree that a stronger economy, an increase in GDP and a reduction in unemployment will increase revenue to the fed. Obama as President has a gigantic toolbox at his disposal. He has a Senate controlled by his party and a Republic house that is chomping at the bit for pro-growth measures. He has access to the brightest economic minds out there if he chooses to seek their assistance. He has a business community and voters all of whom are tired of the economic doldrums we are in and those we face in the future. Yet with the interests of the majority of people aligned, the only tools he can grab from the world's greatest toolbox are the worn out taxing tool and the old rusty spending tool. Shameful.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

The Tech boom in the 90's was a great economic time. So we all agree that a stronger economy, an increase in GDP and a reduction in unemployment will increase revenue to the fed. Obama as President has a gigantic toolbox at his disposal. He has a Senate controlled by his party and a Republic house that is chomping at the bit for pro-growth measures. He has access to the brightest economic minds out there if he chooses to seek their assistance. He has a business community and voters all of whom are tired of the economic doldrums we are in and those we face in the future. Yet with the interests of the majority of people aligned, the only tools he can grab from the world's greatest toolbox are the worn out taxing tool and the old rusty spending tool. Shameful.

 

Don't forget the great big tool of cheap and plentiful energy that is at his disposal if he chooses.

[3rdnlng]

Ah, the dems, they are all for putting your money where their mouths are. The Senate Democrat Majority Leader refuses to allow a vote on Oabama's fiscal cliff prevention bill.

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/video/senate/271255-mcconnell-calls-for-vote-on-obamas-ridiculous-deficit-reduction-plan

 

 

 

 

The majority leader's objection removes the amendment from consideration.

 

McConnell said he wasn’t surprised Democrats didn’t want to vote on Obama’s plan, which he said raises taxes on small businesses.

“Not a single Senate Democrat has stepped forward to support it, and if you look at it you can see why,” McConnell said. “It increases taxes.”

Obama’s plan, released last week, calls for $1.6 trillion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to entitlement programs, plus a new $50 billion stimulus plan. Democrats want to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. The plan would also allow the president to raise the debt ceiling without action from Congress, something lawmakers heavily oppose.

McConnell added that he'd be happy to have a stand-alone vote on the president's plan rather than attaching it to legislation as an amendment.

[GG]

You miss the point. The point is that unemployment of 4% vs 6% was a huge cause of the surpluses.

 

 

Not according to the tax receipts. The rise in cap gains receipts contributed more to the rise in total revenues. Unemployment declined at a steady rate from '92 to '00, yet tax receipts jumped much higher after '97. I wonder why?

[Nanker]

Not according to the tax receipts. The rise in cap gains receipts contributed more to the rise in total revenues. Unemployment declined at a steady rate from '92 to '00, yet tax receipts jumped much higher after '97. I wonder why?

 

I know! I know! George Bush just wanted BO to look bad.

[DrDawkinstein]

Ah, the dems, they are all for putting your money where their mouths are. The Senate Democrat Majority Leader refuses to allow a vote on Oabama's fiscal cliff prevention bill.

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/v...-reduction-plan

 

 

 

 

The majority leader's objection removes the amendment from consideration.

 

McConnell said he wasn’t surprised Democrats didn’t want to vote on Obama’s plan, which he said raises taxes on small businesses.

“Not a single Senate Democrat has stepped forward to support it, and if you look at it you can see why,” McConnell said. “It increases taxes.”

Obama’s plan, released last week, calls for $1.6 trillion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to entitlement programs, plus a new $50 billion stimulus plan. Democrats want to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. The plan would also allow the president to raise the debt ceiling without action from Congress, something lawmakers heavily oppose.

McConnell added that he'd be happy to have a stand-alone vote on the president's plan rather than attaching it to legislation as an amendment.

 

The same genius Mitch McConnell that filibustered HIS OWN PROPOSAL today?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/debt-ceiling-mitch-mcconnell_n_2251515.html

 

Partisan crap aside, it's time to get ALL of these career politicians out of this country's way. Part of me truly believes that McConnell, Reid, and the rest of 'em are all enjoying their Scotch together behind closed doors, laughing at how they got away with doing nothing at work yet again.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

The same genius Mitch McConnell that filibustered HIS OWN PROPOSAL today?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/debt-ceiling-mitch-mcconnell_n_2251515.html

 

Partisan crap aside, it's time to get ALL of these career politicians out of this country's way. Part of me truly believes that McConnell, Reid, and the rest of 'em are all enjoying their Scotch together behind closed doors, laughing at how they got away with doing nothing at work yet again.

 

I would guess that it is the same Mitch McConnell. It would be too much of a coincidence to be anything else. In all seriousness, what McConnell did today was nothing in comparison to Reid refusing a vote on Obama's proposal. Regardless, this battle will play out between Obama and Boehner.

[TPS]

Not according to the tax receipts. The rise in cap gains receipts contributed more to the rise in total revenues. Unemployment declined at a steady rate from '92 to '00, yet tax receipts jumped much higher after '97. I wonder why?

That is not true. I'll bet you two beers on that one. Cap gains increased, but it was in no way the majority of the source for the revenue increase each year.

[GG]

That is not true. I'll bet you two beers on that one. Cap gains increased, but it was in no way the majority of the source for the revenue increase each year.

 

You're on.

[TPS]

You're on.

Here's a source for the cap gains.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-collections-1954-2009

[GG]

Here's a source for the cap gains.

http://taxfoundation...tions-1954-2009

 

So far you're masking the case for me.

 

Total cap gains receipts

'93-'96 - $183bn

'97-'00 - $407bn (with pretty big spikes in 99 & 00)

 

Now compare that to total income tax receipts & SSI, and you will see that the cap gains spikes in 99 & 00 is what drove the surplus.

[TPS]

So far you're masking the case for me.

 

Total cap gains receipts

'93-'96 - $183bn

'97-'00 - $407bn (with pretty big spikes in 99 & 00)

 

Now compare that to total income tax receipts & SSI, and you will see that the cap gains spikes in 99 & 00 is what drove the surplus.

Total taxes paid from 93-96=$2,283.929

Total taxes paid from 97-00=$3,373,568

 

Change in taxes paid 97-00=$1,089,639

Change in Cap gains 97-00=$224,000

%contribution from cap gains 20.5%; %contribution from ordinary income=79.5%

 

As you said,

Not according to the tax receipts. The rise in cap gains receipts contributed more to the rise in total revenues.

Now if you are going to come up with a different definition of "contributed more than" that's up to you...

[3rdnlng]

I wonder if lower capital gains taxes, or even just the prospect of them in the future, brings about job growth that in turn raises payroll taxes and personal income tax for the federal government?

[GG]

Total taxes paid from 93-96=$2,283.929

Total taxes paid from 97-00=$3,373,568

 

Change in taxes paid 97-00=$1,089,639

Change in Cap gains 97-00=$224,000

%contribution from cap gains 20.5%; %contribution from ordinary income=79.5%

 

As you said,

Now if you are going to come up with a different definition of "contributed more than" that's up to you...

 

Since the bet is on what contributed to the surplus during the Clinton years, it was that extraordinary $224bn in cap gains receipts that pushed the budget into a $88bn surplus. If you also look at the revenue trends during Clinton's two terms, there's a discernible difference in how much more revenue was generated from his second term onward, even though the unemployment rate declined at the same rate from '92 to '00.

 

Shame that there isn't a Dick Morris to have Obama's inner ear.

[TPS]

Since the bet is on what contributed to the surplus during the Clinton years, it was that extraordinary $224bn in cap gains receipts that pushed the budget into a $88bn surplus. If you also look at the revenue trends during Clinton's two terms, there's a discernible difference in how much more revenue was generated from his second term onward, even though the unemployment rate declined at the same rate from '92 to '00.

 

Shame that there isn't a Dick Morris to have Obama's inner ear.

No.

You said, "The rise in cap gains receipts contributed more to the rise in total revenues." I responded to that sentence, saying it's not true. Appropriate that you bring up clinton and morris, because you are now redifining what "is" is....

No one denied that capital gains did not contribute. The debate, AND bet, was on what had a bigger impact on generating the surpluses. I said higher income taxes paid from the u-rate falling to 4%, and you said cap gains. I'll go easy on you and hold you only to one beer....

[GG]

No.

You said, "The rise in cap gains receipts contributed more to the rise in total revenues." I responded to that sentence, saying it's not true. Appropriate that you bring up clinton and morris, because you are now redifining what "is" is....

No one denied that capital gains did not contribute. The debate, AND bet, was on what had a bigger impact on generating the surpluses. I said higher income taxes paid from the u-rate falling to 4%, and you said cap gains. I'll go easy on you and hold you only to one beer....

 

Yes, it is in the definition of is.

 

Without the extraordinary rise in cap gains receipts (while the rate went DOWN for the progressives with a limited attention span) there would have been no surpluses.

[3rdnlng]

Don't robust capital gains contribute to job creation, thus causing more personal income tax and payroll tax for the federal government?

[GG]

Don't robust capital gains contribute to job creation, thus causing more personal income tax and payroll tax for the federal government?

 

I don't think you can draw a straight correlation because capital gains are realized when the economy is booming. The logic for keeping these rates low (and for other investment income) is not to trap that discretionary income. You want the investment income back into circulation to keep the capital flowing.