Increase Ordinary Income Tax Rates or................

What's wrong with doing both at the same time?

If one side refuses to increase spending until spending is cut and the other refuses to cut spending until taxes are raised, what happens?

Right. The debt continues to increase by $1 trillion each year.

 

So...maybe lower-middle class earns $25,000 to $75,000 and upper-middle class earn $75,000 to $150,000. If the wealthy are considered those earning over $250K, then what do we label those earning from $150K to $250K? Obviously there is a (*)(*)(*)(*)-load of Americans earning between $25K and $150K! Actually, middle-class can be defined in many different ways so it's really just more political BS...which means it is basically meaningless in problem solving.

A person who dies at age 50, their spouse or kids under age 18 can receive their SS. But you miss the SS rule which is to receive payouts you must live to at least 62.5 or 65 or whatever retirement age. Those who die prior to retirement should have a refund given to the surviving member...this is an easy rule change.

When was income tax brackets reduced for the wealthy and not for other tax brackets?

The FICA burden is an equal percentage based on gross income. Those with less income pay less FICA and those with more income pay more FICA...this is fair.

Wal-Mart does not pay the lowest wages possible. Wal-Mart must pay what the supply and demand on labor dictates. Wal-Mart only employees about 1.5 million workers; there are 50 million workers competing for those 1.5 million jobs which means high supply will bring down the wages.

BTW; Wal-Mart will oblige you and others and double everyone's wages tomorrow. Of course 100% of this increased cost will be passed on to you and your friends. And if you and your friends refuse to pay the higher prices, then Wal-Mart will simply close the doors.

Once again, I ask you Iriemon, how do you propose to interfere with the economy and government, and force more economic growth to the lower and middle classes and less economic growth to the upper classes?

 

This means you believe the US government, and all local and state governments for that matter, DO NOT have a spending problem.

For some reason you think the government needs more and more and more with zero limits on spending and debt?

And ALL of that tax money you keep wanting to get your hands on...you are taking this directly out of the private economy, from students and workers, and believe that money is more important given to the government...

 

First, the American public needs to decide on the role of the federal government; is everything the government does today necessary and are there things the government should be doing but they are not. Once this can be defined, then we can decide how much money the government is allocated to operate. IMO this should be determined by some dollar amount per US citizen. If the US population is 310 million, and we agree the government gets $10,000 per citizen, then the government budget is $3.1 trillion...period. Not a penny more unless there is a national emergency.

Whatever amount is determined in the above process, this is the amount of tax revenue that is REQUIRED to be collected. As more socialism creeps into the picture, and government needs more money, the private economy will need to pay more. If the private economy is unwilling to pay more, then government costs must be reduced. Today too many people demand a certain government but are unwilling to pay for that government...this is self-serving BS and it is unsustainable!

I don't personally care if I pay 35% or 75% in taxation. But people must be willing to accept the cause and effect of such taxation. Some of you believe you can get stuff for free, that there are no cause and effects of taking more and more, and are happy with government printing more and more money...but all of this greed just digs a deeper hole...

 

I don't have any political views??

I've answered all your questions. All spending energizes the economy. We need all people from homeless to billionaires to be involved in the economy. Who cares how they are involved as long as they are involved? Too much of this is just petty political BS. People spend!!!! All people spend! Don't try to control how people spend or judge how people spend. Worry about your own spending...

 

Yes they are.

I can't provide tax rate numbers. The US has basically had the same income tax rates for several decades. Yes there have been changes but I think it's reasonable to say the current tax structure has not changed much. You have not defined the problem why we need more taxes?? If your reason is to mitigate deficit spending, you'll need to research why we have so much deficit spending when we did not 20-30 years ago? You'll also need to define the role of government in order to know how much government should actually be spending?

In constant 2005 dollars;

Here's the spending between 1980 and 2011

[TABLE="width: 75"]
[TR]
[TD]1,368.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,416.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,452.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,498.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,501.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,612.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,645.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,616.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,663.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,724.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,831.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,849.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,857.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,845.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,878.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,896.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,906.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,916.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,958.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,989.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,040.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,072.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,201.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,303.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,377.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,472.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,563.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,565.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,703.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3,173.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3,081.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3,126.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

And Obama is forecasting spending 2012 to 2017;

[TABLE="width: 75"]
[TR]
[TD]3,212.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3,157.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3,165.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3,246.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3,395.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3,484.1
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

When does the spending increases end? Where are the spending controls? This is a political game of the tax dog chasing it's tail...

 

No, there is definitely a middle between the wealthiest and poorest.

If they have survivors, the survivors may be survivor benefits. If not they don't.

I disagree those who die prior to retirement should have a refund. You don't get a refund on insurance.

The wealthy pay the bulk of income taxes and therefore benefit most from the income tax cut.

You are factually wrong. SS is only taxed up to $110k of income and no FICA tax is levied against investment income, the type the uber rich like Romney live off of.

Second, I disagree with your view of "fair". The same level of tax on the poorest means they are taxed on money they need for basic necessities in greater proportion to a wealthier person. Thus the same level of of tax is a greater burden on the poorer, which is not "fair" IMO.

Exactly. When there is an oversupply of labor, the market will reduce the unit value of that labor to the minimal amount people will possibly accept to work. A union combines the individual unit into a collective giving it leverage to obtain wages closer to the value of the labor. A MW puts a floor on the income paid.

True for products and services that depend more heavily on low end labor. But that increase is proportionately born by the wealthier because the increase in incomes of the lower wage earners offsets the relative increase in price.

I explained this back in post #40.

I'll repeat it again, but how many times are you going to repeat the same basic question?

We should basically undo the "trickle down" policies of the Reagan and Bush era. We should undo the SS tax increase and cut SS for the middle/low, and replace it by removing the $110k income cap and make it applicable to investment returns as well. We should increase the top marginal tax rate to at least the 50% level Reagan had it during his boom. We should make investment taxes the same rate as earned income like Reagan did. We should increase the minimum wage and passd laws that empore unions to increase their bargaining power for the workers (except for governments). We should remove exemptions, loopholes and special provisions that lower taxes for the richest. We should make SS/medicare means tested as well as educational grants and loans. We should firm oup the safety nets which support the battered middle classes.

And I ask *you* again: What are your proposals to reverse the trend where almost all the growth in income and wealth in this country have been going to the top 10% and most to the top 1%?

 

Well no, it means that if the Govt collected the same amount of taxes as a % of GDP over the past three years as it did in 2000, the Govt would have collected $750-800 billion more in revenues each year, and the deficits would have proportionately less.

It says nothing about spending, but sounds like there is a revenue problem to me when 3/4 of the deficit is due to the decrease in proportional revenues.

That is pretty much the case thru history. The more important metric is spending proportionate to GDP.

That is not true at all but a simplified and false conservative argument we've seen a thousand times. It is not only not true, but the complete opposite can be true. It depends on the nature of the who is taxed and what happens to the taxed money.

For example, if you take taxes from a wealthy person who would otherwise stick it in a Swiss bank account, and transfer it to a person on SS who spends it, you are actually taking money that was out of the economy and injecting it in the economy.

The complete opposite of your assertion.

 

To me this is totally backwards, and this thinking is an excuse for why the Govt has run up trillions of debt.

FIRST we need to raise taxes and trim spending and balance the budget. THEN we can worry about the nature of Govt, and cut taxes if and only if spending is cut correspondingly.

Ever since Reagan the conservative view has changed from fiscal prudence to cut taxes and (*)(*)(*)(*) the consequence. That has to change, but ironically has got more entrenched with ideology and sworn allegiance to Grover Norquist's agenda.

We are never going to agree on the nature of the Govt, and if we don't make balancing the budget the priority, we will constantly run up debt while we argue about what the nature of Govt is.

 

That is not true at all. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the top tax rate was 91%. It is 35% today.

 

no form of income should be taxed differently than any other

 

The reason why he strives so hard not to acknowledge the indisputable fact that middle/poorer class folks as a group spend a much higher percentage of their income than the uber rich is obvious. It undermines his entire position.

 

Sure there's a middle on everything but who cares; what meaning can it possibly have other than politics? Why are people so willing to be labeled and judged by the label...this is stupidity.

People are investing in SS by paying FICA withholding and are therefore guaranteed a payout at retirement based on the investment amount. If they don't get the payout, then they should get a refund.

If a group is paying the most dollars, and you wish to cut the tax rates, why wouldn't that same group save the most dollars? What logic are you using?

The SS or FICA rate is the same but it's based on gross income which IS NOT the same so those earning less pay much less and those earning more pay more...is there something wrong with this?

The minimum wage is a political gimmick. Why is it government's business to tell YOU how much you can earn? If you wish to work at the local bookstore for $5/hour...this is your choice! If you refuse to work for less than $12/hour...this is your choice!

You can ask your silly question all you wish but I won't have an answer because I don't see anything wrong with our current economy; ALL people make ALL decisions how they will participate in the economy. If people don't like their situation, then People need to make better decisions! You're like a tick gorged on how much a few wealthy people earn as if they have a disease that needs to be treated? You 100% ignore any personal responsibility!! Government IS NOT the answer to any of this stuff, which is proven to you because government never solves these problems and you and others continue to whine about the same stuff forever...

 

The federal government will take in about $2 trillion this year so you believe another $750 billion can easily be taken from the private economy and transferred to government...this is 38% more in taxation! If it's so easy Iriemon to extract $750 billion from the economy, what is Obama waiting for? I suppose you want to collect all of it from the so-called wealthy?

You DO NOT know if the deficits will be less?? If there are no spending limits in place, whatever you give government they will spend it! The more you give the government the less incentive the government has to run a tight ship...it's always easier to spend than to not spend or reduce spending.

You want to tie government spending to GDP but government has little to do with GDP. Government is in the People business so spending should be ratioed to the population.

Again, you are focused on a non-issue thinking tens of millions of wealthy people have Swiss bank accounts? And even if they did, it is 100% their choice where they wish to store/invest their money...not yours and not governments!

Here's a fact for you; using the GDP, every $110K of GDP represents 1 American job. Using the recent $787 billion stimulus to create jobs, managed by the government, each American job was at a cost of $250K. I would prefer to maximize the private sector and minimize government; for some reason you must prefer the opposite...

 

Why would you raise taxes when you haven't defined the government? How do you know how much it will cost for the government when you don't know what the government should be doing?

IMHO the deficits and debt are too large to resolve in the next ten years or more. The economy remains weak with the Feds constantly manipulating the economy, with the Euro-zone imploding, war-type fighting all over the world, 20-25 million Americans out of work, etc. and you think you just Waltz in and extract $750 billion from this situation...heck of a plan.

Use some logic Iriemon; if 'we' can never agree on the nature of the government, then you will never balance the budget. You will always be spending more than the receipts because politics can always find more ways to spend money no matter if it's debt money...zero accountability...zero fiscal responsibility...zero incentive to change...

 

Go back and do some more research. The effective tax rates are about the same as they always have been. All the changes IMO are politically driven because there are too many variables like tax policy, loopholes, taxable earnings brackets, etc. In constant 2005 dollars, here are the tax receipts since 1950;

[TABLE="width: 75"]
[TR]
[TD]370.7Bil[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]493.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]635.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]619.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]599.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]544.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]590.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]602.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]566.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]542.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]630.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]626.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]659.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]674.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]704.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]721.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]789.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]875.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]866.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]993.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]968.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]877.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]908.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]956.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,004.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]966.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]956.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]253.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,054.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,113.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,187.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,197.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,251.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,202.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,113.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,174.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,250.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,277.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,375.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,421.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,494.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,508.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,473.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,467.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,511.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,617.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,691.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,775.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,889.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,040.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,136.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,310.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,215.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,028.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,901.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,949.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,153.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,324.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,414.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2,288.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,899.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,927.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1,998.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I'm sure they track the population and GDP increases. Politics will lead you to believe that these tax rates/policy make a difference...but they do not make an appreciable difference and are just political games. You jack up rates to 91% or any rate deemed idiotic by Americans and you won't collect any extra revenues...surely not enough to solve more problems than it causes. And don't forget Iriemon, 2012 is a lot different from 1950 and what policy was in place decades ago won't work in 2012...

 

For the very last time, all spending energizes the economy! I know of no wealthy person who has cash sitting 'idle'. If cash is not in mattresses or extreme short-term investments, then it is productive and it is energizing the economy. You and others will whine about the wealthy as if they're the ilk of the nation while I applaud all the successes of the wealthy. Every single person spends what they can spend; it is not governments job to tell people how to spend their money...

 

Post 87 says 91%

I don't suggest you ever take my word for anything.

Laffer Curve; I never said the Laffer Curve was justification for not increasing tax rates? In my life, in my little corner of this nation, with the money I have, I can name many government programs I wish they were doing and I am happy to pay for those programs. But most Americans don't feel this way; most Americans demand far more than they are willing to pay. Some of this stems from greed and self-serving behavior and some of it stems simply from not having the money. It will be foolishness to ignore the very tentative US economy today and politically increase anyone's tax rates. Year after year the American public is ONLY willing to provide so much in taxation and this number is about $1+ trillion below the government spending. If deficits are someone's priority, and if Americans won't pay more taxes, then spending reductions is the only answer. There are cause and effects of tax rates and where those taxes are applied; it is critical to understand these cause and effects before we allow our political bias to force stupid decisions. I'd like to choke Obama each time he infers that the wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes! Making these ignorant and stupid statements is 100% politics! If it's 100% politics, then what's the point in talking about it...

 

Why don't you answer his question?

The question was not whether any or all spending energizes the country.

The question was: Who is more likely to spend the money that they own as opposed to letting it sit idol, a wealthy person, or a poor person?

It's a simply, straightforward question he has asked 2-3 times now.

 

It can mean the group below the wealthiest and above the poorest. In my graphs it was the groups below the top 10%.

It is absolutely a legitimate means of classification for analyzing things like which groups are benefiting from the growth in income and wealth and which which are not.

That's just wrong. SS is not an investment and never has been. It's a type of insurance that provides a benefit if and only if certain conditions are met.

Of course. And proportionately more.

Those earning more are not paying a greater rate. Yes there is something wrong with that, it unfaily puts the tax burden on the less wealthy.

It's not a gimmick to those that benefit from it and see their incomes rise from it.

If you support most of the growth of our nation's wealth and income going to the 1% as it has over the past 30 years, then Romney's your man.

 

We can also look at them as a % of GDP which proves your statement is wrong.

Year - Rev:GDP
2000 20.4%
2001 19.4%
2002 17.4%
2003 16.0%
2004 15.9%
2005 17.1%
2006 18.0%
2007 18.3%
2008 17.7%
2009 15.1%
2010 14.9%
2011 15.3%

In the past 11 years, taxes revenues as a percentage of GDP have dropped from 20% to 15%. 5% of of a $15.5 trillion GDP is $775 billion dollars. I beg to differ with you - $775 billion is an appreciable difference.