Obama's naive class warfare

[Rey C.]

Several of the arguments in this thread seem to assume that any increase in tax rates will take those rates to 100%. At that level, I would agree that there would be a marked decrease in economic activity. And at 0%, I think we'd all agree that there would be a marked increase in economic activity. There is an economic assumption that at both 0% and 100%, the government would not collect any (or very much) in the way of taxes. At 0% there would be nothing to collect, and at 100% people would modify their behavior to avoid being taxed, or they would just stop generating profits.

But neither of those scenarios is realistic. What we should be discussing is if there can be a change in the top marginal rates (up or down), combined with eliminating many/most of the loopholes and breaks that are specific to certain individuals or industries. But here, IMO, we're going back to the hyperbolic arguments of "unplugging grandma" again. Even Laffer himself admitted that small, incremental increases or decreases in marginal tax rates have little to no effect on economic activity. All Bush's tax cuts did (measurably) was add to the deficit. Even without his unfunded wars in the Middle East and his unfunded mandates (Medicare Part D and the No Child Left behind Act), his cuts to the top rates did not spark enough economic growth to make up for the losses in revenue. That is a fact and I challenge anyone to prove it false. Use the Laffer Curve or any other method of your choosing. It did not happen.

As for the tax code, as it is, it is a hot mess. Those companies (and individuals) who are able to use the current system to their benefit (and pay less than even 20%) do not want a change. We could go to 25% as a top rate, close the loopholes and easily raise more revenue than we are at 35%. So why isn't this a no brainer? Why aren't (so called) "fiscal conservatives" getting on this train? Because many/most of today's "fiscal conservatives" were the same ones who spent our money like drunk sailors on shore leave during the Bush years.

As someone else said (Monica?), it is easy enough to pluck anecdotal stories out of the news and then believe that if we'd ONLY clamp down on welfare mothers and Gulfstream owners, all of our problems would be solved. I'm sure some on here know what a Pareto chart is and what its purpose is. When using a Pareto chart (properly), you'll often find that the issues that everyone is talking about are not necessarily the issues that provide the greatest contribution to the overall problem. And yet, since Ross Perot left the stage, we seldom, if ever, have politicians or supporters of a given policy or idea using that (or any other) data driven tool. But given that so many Americans can't do math (even with a calculator), it's easier to just feed them a line of shit that they want to believe anyway, and that's the way to get the hayseed vote.

Bottomline: an increase in the upper marginal tax rate by 2-4% would not cause businesses to shut down, leave the U.S. or cause those with apartments on the Upper East Side of Manhattan to move to France. Those with sufficient net worth already have apartments in Monaco, so why would they move to France?! :eeew:

 

[Hot Mega]

Several of the arguments in this thread seem to assume that any increase in tax rates will take those rates to 100%. At that level, I would agree that there would be a marked decrease in economic activity. And at 0%, I think we'd all agree that there would be a marked increase in economic activity. There is an economic assumption that at both 0% and 100%, the government would not collect any (or very much) in the way of taxes. At 0% there would be nothing to collect, and at 100% people would modify their behavior to avoid being taxed, or they would just stop generating profits.

But neither of those scenarios is realistic. What we should be discussing is if there can be a change in the top marginal rates (up or down), combined with eliminating many/most of the loopholes and breaks that are specific to certain individuals or industries. But here, IMO, we're going back to the hyperbolic arguments of "unplugging grandma" again. Even Laffer himself admitted that small, incremental increases or decreases in marginal tax rates have little to no effect on economic activity. All Bush's tax cuts did (measurably) was add to the deficit. Even without his unfunded wars in the Middle East and his unfunded mandates (Medicare Part D an the No Child Left behind Act), his cuts to the top rates did not spark enough economic growth to make up for the losses in revenue. That is a fact and I challenge anyone to prove it false. Use the Laffer Curve or any other method of your choosing. It did not happen.

As for the tax code, as it is, it is a hot mess. Those companies (and individuals) who are able to use the current system to their benefit (and pay less than even 20%) do not want a change. We could go to 25% as a top rate, close the loopholes and easily raise more revenue than we are at 35%. So why isn't this a no brainer? Why aren't (so called) "fiscal conservatives" getting on this train? Because many/most of today's "fiscal conservatives" were the same ones who spent our money like drunk sailors on shore leave during the Bush years.

As someone else said (Monica?), it is easy enough to pluck anecdotal stories out of the news and then believe that if we'd ONLY clamp down on welfare mothers and Gulfstream owners, all of our problems would be solved. I'm sure some on here know what a Pareto chart is and what its purpose is. When using a Pareto chart (properly), you'll often find that the issues that everyone is talking about are not necessarily the issues that provide the greatest contribution to the overall problem. And yet, since Ross Perot left the stage, we seldom, if ever, have politicians or supporters of a given policy or idea using that (or any other) data driven tool. But given that so many Americans can't do math (even with a calculator), it's easier to just feed them a line of shit that they want to believe anyway, and that's the way to get the hayseed vote.

Bottomline: an increase in the upper marginal tax rate by 2-5% will not cause businesses to shut down, leave the U.S. or cause those with apartments on the Upper East Side of Manhattan to move to France. Those with sufficient net worth already have apartments in Monaco, so why would they move to France?! :eeew:

Obama should have simply stood up there and said,

"I ran on taking the tax rate for the top 2 pct. back to what they were under Clinton, when our budget was balanced. That's what we're going to do whether they like it or not and that's all I'm going to say. Good day."

 

[Rey C.]

I know what private insurance is. But paying for the poor and social healthcare leechers by deducting taxes on the salaries of honest hard working people is a no :nono: But who cares if the poor or the ghetto trash people die?
I don't give a damn about them. I think people should insure themselves to their own level and stop counting on others to pay for them or assist them.

Well, if they are Americans, then I do care about them. You may have this belief that anyone who makes more money than you do, or who has a higher net worth than you do, is your better. But that is not my belief... and I don't think it is the belief of most Americans.

I recognize that there are people who game the system. People who are parasites. But in my experience, they are not just at the bottom of the income spectrum, they are also at the top. There are people (Donald Trump, Wilbur Ross, et al) who use the corporate bankruptcy laws to extract billions of dollars from companies and then leave the taxpayers with a bill for the unfunded pensions. No, we should not have programs that encourage a cradle to grave mentality. But without efficient policy making, those are they the pitfalls of having ANY sort of safety net. So just because someone is born into poverty, what, you'd gas them... or just let them rot in the street? In the case of (truly) disabled people, I have no problems at all with them receiving benefits from the day they are born to the day they die. We are still the richest nation on earth, and I feel that our doing that makes us more civilized than those countries that do not do that. Is that "socialism"? Yes, it is. But rather than bastardize the word or run from it like it'll burn me, as many do, I realize that our nation has had socialist programs since the first soldier got a pay check that came from the tax payers.

But how do I feel about people who won't go to school (assuming they have schools that are fit to attend), won't work, won't develop marketable skills, prey on the weak among us? Well, I have no use for those people either. I feel the same about them as I do about countries that won't devote the necessary resources to protect themselves, and instead look to the U.S. every time they run into a problem. Another problem we have is the U.S. is responsible for roughly half of the world's military spending. IMO, it is not the job of American tax payers to prop up every two bit government around the world. And it looks to me like, without U.S. leadership, NATO couldn't beat a troop of Boy Scouts with slingshots. Yeah, I think we need to force some of the rabble to do for themselves here... and I think we need to force some of you folks across the pond to put on your big boy pants too. Doing for yourself builds character and makes for a better person, right?

 

[Rey C.]

Obama should have simply stood up there and said,

"I ran on taking the tax rate for the top 2 pct. back to what they were under Clinton, when our budget was balanced. That's what we're going to do whether they like it or not and that's all I'm going to say. Good day."

Yes, he absolutely should have. IMO this should have been done when he still had some political capital to spend. Now I'd say it's too late. Unless the top 2% get their breaks, no one else gets a cent! The GOP has spoken! :bowdown:

Another thing that baffles me is the whining about the "wasteful stimulus". Well, news flash, nearly half of it was tax credits and rebates = supply side economics. So Mitt, Michele and the rest of the crew are now against the theory that their Lord & Savior, Ronald Reagan, based his economic policy on??? :surprise:

 

[Nester6]

The mega rich now pay the lowest percentage of income tax than they have in any time in the last 50 years. How is that class warfare?

How about the 45% of "Americans" who pay absolutely nothing?

 

[StanScratch]

How about the 45% of "Americans" who pay absolutely nothing?

Are you talking about the corporations who have outsourced so much of their work force that they are no longer considered a U.S. company, or the companies and wealthy who shift their wealth to the overseas so that in the States, they actually do have little in the way of wealth, but are still worth billions?

 

[Straight Shooter]

How about the 45% of "Americans" who pay absolutely nothing?

That percentage is misunderstood. That does not mean such households end up paying no taxes whatsoever. For instance, those in that group still pay other taxes such as state and local income taxes, as well as property and sales taxes. And the group doesn't necessarily get off scot-free when it comes to payroll taxes -which support Social Security and Medicare.

There are two reasons why the ranks of those whose federal income tax burden comes out to zero. The first is temporal. The downturn in the economy has hurt household incomes and various stimulus bills offered Americans temporary tax breaks to mitigate the economic pain -thereby further reducing their tax bills.

The second is more systemic. The tax code is filled with hundreds of tax breaks to encourage economic activities the government favors. For instance, the law offers credits to supplement the wages of low-income workers, help families pay for college and encourage them to buy homes and have children.Temporary tax policies, such as the Bush-era tax cuts and the tax breaks passed under President Obama, have also increased the ranks of the non-payers.If most tax breaks were removed, the Tax Policy Center estimates, the percentage of households with no federal income tax liability would drop to 27% from 45%.

 

[El Perro Mayor]

I love they way the less fortunate, lower class, people on welfare or unemployment are being put to blame for the recent financial misfortunes of the US by some postings here. Think about this. Did their actions or lake there of, cause anyone to lose their life savings? Did any of them get a bail-out? Are they awarding themselves record high bonuses?

 

[busenbust]

absolutely fucking dismal NFP numbers this morning -- Ob just speaking now ...

{omg ! :shocked: rag is banned! ? :shocked:}