13% of Taxpayers pay 72% of the tax burden

OK so what?

Yes I know, so why do you seem to have such difficulty

What is not equitable now? Again the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes while the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, what is not equitable about that?

 

again... it's a political process... you don't want to see the marginal tax rate go up, even two or three percent?... make sure your guy gets elected next time... make sure your party gains the majority in both houses and you'll get your way, until those variables change, and then, we'll get our way. If you don't like that process.... renounce your citizenship and move somewhere else. It's as easy as that.

 

I am no longer interested in refuting your claims, you just make the same claims a week later....

 

Agreed.

 

That isn't quite consistent with supply & demand. An individual's labour supply, given the interaction of substitution and income effects, is backward bending. This means that higher taxes on the higher paid can actually increase work incentives. Also the correct comparison should be effective marginal rates of tax. Given the interaction of tax and benefit effects, the high effective rates are really faced by the lower paid. Progressivity in tax is vital if the real disincentive effects, unemployment and poverty traps, are to the avoided.

 

Again......a dodge.....as I predicted earlier. And I know full well how the political system works so spare me.

Again what is not equitable now? Again the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes while the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, what is not equitable about that?

- - - Updated - - -

You haven't refuted my claims because you can't and thus YOUR claims have been refuted by the facts.

You can be snarky or you can engage in a civil debate of the issues.....apparent you are only capable of the former.

 

I happen to believe it's not quite equitable. I happen to believe that if we got rid of the Bush tax cuts that reduced the top marginal rates and returned them to the levels they were during the Clinton administration, it would be more equitable than it is right now. See how that works?

 

See here's an example of why I don't bother to pay attention to your "claims"

You replied to this

with this

What you characterized as a peak deficit of $400 billion, was in actuality a 236 billion dollar surplus, the largest surplus ever recorded by the US Treasury.
And you then give the 2007 deficit.
You leave out 2008 with a 458 billion dollar deficit and 2009 with it's 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

So what you are depicting as a model of fiscal discipline, dropping a 400 billion deficit to 167 billion, was in the real world, taking a 236 billion dollar surplus and leaving a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit...

And you still won't admit you're wrong, and you'll repeat this nonsense again in a week or two....

 

There was a $231 billion dollar surplus?

 

236.2 billion actually, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

 

Wasn't aware that a budget surplus increased debt levels...

 

Yes, apparently you aren't aware how the numbers are arrived at.
When receipts exceed outlays, it's called a surplus....

And it reduces debt held by the public
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYGFDPUN

 

The national debt increases when outlays exceed revenue. That only happens with an accumulation of a deficit, not a surplus...

The total debt would have decreased with the surplus, just like any other time in history when there was a budget surplus; however, it didn't.

Maybe you can explain the phenomenon, although, I don't think you will be able to.

 

It's simple, really, the Debt Held By the Public, is all the money the Federal Government owes to every person, company, state, city or country, all the money it owes to every entity in the world, except the United States Government.
So when receipts (money received, which is taxes, fees and fines NOT borrowing) exceeds outlays (which is money spent, NOT debt repaid), the debt held by the public decreases, as it did.
The Public Debt includes debt held by the US Government, money that one part of the government owes to another part of the government, it's not part of the Debt held by the Public and it doesn't figure in the Surplus Deficit calculations since it is offset by the government holding it as an asset at the same time it is a liability.

If you write an IOU for a million dollars, and stick it in your pocket, you aren't any richer or poorer, you have a million dollars in your pocket, but at the same time you owe a million dollars.....

 

That is simply not true. The Intragovernmental Debt is the part of the debt the Government owes to itself, which needs to be repaid in the same fashion as the money owed to the private sector. When revenue exceeds outlays, the addition money is paid to the respective borrowers and the respective government agencies.

There was a $263.2 billion dollar surplus. The public debt decreased by $148 billion, however, the intragovermental debt increased by a larger margin of $248. That just doesn't happen and $115 billion dollars just doesn't disappear. What did happen is that the government is required to borrow money from trust funds, by law, in order to fund government spending, which is really the only reason to account for the surplus.

That doesn't change the fact that you still have a million dollars that you still need to repay later. In any case, you can't really call it a surplus because the Government decides to borrow from the Trust instead of the Public.

 

It's called a surplus because Receipts exceed Outlays, it's an accounting term, not a moral judgment, it has a precise meaning, and that is why they can calculate the actual surplus to the penny.
The public debt can also fall while the government runs a deficit, the two are only tangentially related.

And here is the reason why.
Say the Congress decides to do away with the Social Security Trust Fund, and just make Social Security payments an obligation of the General fund, and SS Payroll taxes simply get tacked on to Income tax.
Then the Public debt would have fallen with the same receipts, same outlays.
The method used goes by actual cash flows, it ignores bookkeeping entries, which can be done in any number of ways.
It only counts debt that the Government owes to an entity other than the government, because that is the only debt that can be paid off.
If the Feds sent Social Security the money to pay off the debt in the Trust fund, Social Security would send it back in exchange for more debt, it can't be paid off, it can only be worked off.

 

Me>> Again what is not equitable now? Again the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes while the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, what is not equitable about that?

Again what is not equitable about that? Seems to me that is disproportionately "unequitiable".

I happen to believe that if we got rid of the Bush tax cuts that reduced the top marginal rates and returned them to the levels they were during the Clinton administration, it would be more equitable than it is right now. See how that works?[/QUOTE]

Ahh no you don't see how that works me thinks. Prove that before the Bush tax rate cuts the higher earners paid a smaller share of income taxes than they do now. See how this works. Better still, prove the paid less in actual dollars.

 

I cannot recall a time when the Public Debt has fallen and the government accumulated a budget deficit. Public Debt falls when maturities are repaid. Not when the Government runs a deficit.

Yes, theoretically, the Government could run a Surplus every year simply by cutting out the Social Security Administration and using the General Fund and paying the recipients, but that isn't what is happening and I don't see why that relates to anything. And also Social Security is currently running a deficit, so that scenario wouldn't work even if you wanted it.

Social Security is an off budget item. The Fund has been used as a method of revenue accumulation for almost a century. All governments and administrations have used it, and this isn't new. Your argument fails to consider that Social Security was not the only Trust Fund with a surplus at the time in question. Social Security Trust runs a surplus, that surplus is invested in Securities and the General Fund has extra money to spend. The Government has a budget surplus because it borrowed from the trust instead of the public; however, total debt levels did not decrease in the same way that would have happened if a real surplus would occur.

 

ROFL you don't because you can't refute the facts.

Well first you conflate two thing, that the economic expanded has no direct effect on the deficit, that the deficit rose every year, it did not but putting that aside, only has to do with what the Congress passes in their budget.

Yes you claimed the deficit ROSE every year, it DID NOT, it fell dramatically after all the tax rate cuts went into effect. Prove otherwise.

Peak deficit under BUSH/REPUBLICAN, Bush wasn't in office then. That being said that surplus was a result of Gingrich and Kaisch and tax rate CUTS.

Yes the last BUSH/REPUBLICAN budget/

Oh I am more than happy to talk about those DEMOCRAT budget deficits. The ones that Senator Obama supported and voted for and especially the 2009 one which PRESIDENT OBAMA signed into law. What do you have to say about them?

The surplus in 2001, passed before Bush even came to town had fallen in half from the peak 236B surplus. Do you not reacall the economy went into a slowdown 3rd quarter of 2000 before Bush even won the nomination, we had the dot.com bust and collapse of the stockmarket and then the 9/11 attack, and was in recession within weeks of his taking office, OF COURSE the surplus went away. I thought you supported stimulus spending when the economy was in a recession, or is that only for Democrats?

Ahh that was Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama who created that deficit. Bush's lame duck budget proposal was dead on arrival and the Congress would not sent him a FY2009 budget to sign. They passed a temporary spending bill and then between the time Obama won the election and took office formulated that budget, Obama supported and voted for it and signed it into law after he took office. Get your facts straight.

Prove anything I said is wrong.

 

You are making this way too complicated.
Draw a line around the federal government, divide all the money that crosses that line into 4 streams.
Revenue (which is all the money that comes into the government, except borrowing), Borrowing, Outlays (which is all the money that gets spent except debt redemption) and Debt Redemption.
Revenue exceeded Outlays for 4 years , this is the Clinton Surplus.

Try to remember that the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Mother Jones and FOX News all agree there was a surplus. If you think that somehow you discovered something that they missed, then by all means illuminate us with your wisdom....Point out what the treasury got wrong, all the numbers are public.

 

I don't need to prove what you say is wrong, your reputation precedes you...

 

You are getting confused. The BEA papers are limited to how the national accounts and income are formulated within the various methods of analyzing capital gains on capital formation. The last paper, that I know of, was in 2003, and all that paper did was give an analysis of the various methods used, albeit all controversial, to how capital gain and capital formation are used in calculating national income. The only governmental paper that analyzed tax policy with capital gain taxes and capital formation was done by the CBO in 2010. And that paper concluded that lowering capital gain taxes did not affect capital formation at all.

Take for instance the 2003 tax cuts where qualified divideds would have the same treatment as long term capital gains. The capital gain tax cut on dividends did not create new net capital formation, as it is applied to national income. But it die allow high dividend payout corporations to compete for the same capital investment as with state and local debentures. All the capital gain tax cut did was shift investment from one avenue tot another, yet the net capital formation remained the same, using regression analysis.

Then explain why capital formation increased, per your chart, from 1994 to 1997 when capital gain taxes were first cut in 1997 after TRA 86

 

Under the tax code, yes. Whether its an individual, corporation, partnership, estate, etc, all are taxpayers. Only persons in the tax code are called individual taxpayers, but all others are still taxpayers under the code. See regulations 301.7701-1 thorugh 3 for further explanations.

Income taxes can come from personae or business Bluesguy. But the point is that they are not the only federal taxes. That is what everybody who knows taxes or taxation policy is trying to explain to you, but you still don't get it.

The question is, how do you define "fairness?" Fairness is defined in many ways, not just one.

But you want to define fairness as having all the reweards and benefits and oone of the burdens or consequences. That is not fair, that is debauchery.

I understand what flat tax is Bluesguy. Unfortunately, you have no clue whatsoever.

So, here I am going to draw a picture or two for you. Let's assume there are two groups. Each group has a 1000 persons. One group has each person with taxable income of $1 million and the other group with each person of taxable income of $1000. Both groups taxes at the same rate of 20%. Who, as a totalt will pay more? The group with each person making $1 million or the group with each person with $1000 The first group of course and they will still pay more in taxes in total than the other group. The flat tzx of 20% is still being applied evenly.

what you don't see, however, is that the flat tax will increase the number of people who don't pay taxes. With large standard deductions and personal exemptions, the rate will increase from about 47% to over 60% if it the requirements is for $60 for single and $120k for married filing jointly. Additionally, you will see a drop in revenue, a huge increase in the wealth gap with you not on the side of the rich BTW,, and a decrease in revenue in which there still won't be enough to pay for defense obligations.

When claiming certain credits, the burden of proof is the same Bluesguy.

Yes, inventories can be tedious once a year unless you have a point of sale system. Most prudent businesses have that, which saves on the time and allotmet of recordkeeping on inventories.

 

You need to learn how to differentiate between debt and deficit. If you exclude payroll tax receipts, there was actually a deficit, but since payroll tax receipts were greater than its outlays, the remaining monies were invested by the treasury in federal government debentures to increase the debt level. .