State of the Union 2014

[Polish Leppy 22]

The thing is taxes are almost at an all time low in this country so if the trickle down effect actually worked , as reps say, we should have the lowest unemployment of all time, but reps keep saying how terrible the economy is and how there are no good paying jobs. They can't keep playing both side of the fence. I

Highest corporate taxes in the world and lowest number of people in the workforce in decades. smh...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Your last paragraph is absolute nonsense. Blind unfounded nonsense.

Bull. If you're going to disagree at least back it up with something.

 

[DSully1995]

Meanwhile, the marginal tax rate in the highest income bracket dropped from 91% (which was too high I think) in 1963 to 39.6% in 2003. The Bush administration then cut the rate further from 39.6% to 35% until it was raised again back to 39.6 in January 2013. In fact, the super rich pay an average of 22 % of their income in federal taxes because of special breaks given to income from capital gains and dividends.

It's time to stop believing in the fairy tale that tax cuts for the rich translate into increased entrepreneurial activity that produces jobs. No, jobs are created when there is a market for particular goods and services; and that happens when the masses of people have adequate incomes and want those products.

The rich should shoulder their fair share of the cost of running government. That they do not is testimony to the undue influence that rich people have over Congress and the President. We should support a more balanced tax policy that would help the middle class.

nobody ever paid the 91% rate because their were so many deductions, so that rate is pretty deceiving. Also cutting the rates increased the actual amount collected for JFK Reagan and Bush, which is what matters right? Or is a game of getting even?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Highest corporate taxes in the world

1) thats before the slew of tax breaks, 2) we see record profits too, they must we doing alright.

and lowest number of people in the workforce in decades.

Which can be explained by reasons other than taxes.

 

[connor_in]

Funniest part of all this from all the clips and analysis on both sides...

Obama introduces pizza guy and worker and that pizza guy raised worker's wages...invites other business leader to do so as well...gonna have a conference with a bunch of business leaders and advise them of same...then says he will require higher wages ofr govt contractors (which some congressman claims is outside of his authority, but thats another argument)...THEN he basically says, OK I made the gesture of "asking" business leaders to raise wages and its been like 30 seconds, so now I will admonish Congress to require these business leaders to do what I just asked/advised them to do on their own

Great comedy in this "historic" (per Chris Matthews) speech

 

[Domina Nostra]

nobody ever paid the 91% rate because their were so many deductions, so that rate is pretty deceiving. Also cutting the rates increased the actual amount collected for JFK Reagan and Bush, which is what matters right? Or is a game of getting even?

Even pay for subjectively-measured even work!

Three things:

1) Families and individuals benefit from good decision-making that delays gratification. They benefit more if these behaviors are repeated generationally. If your father was a really hard worker and saved money for the family, that is not a bad thing. Government should hold those people up as the ideal, not making everyone jealous and suspicious of them--by constantly implying that people only do well because of their environment, giving tons of benefits to kids whose parents aren't making money, and trying to "reset" the situation every generation through taxes. Let charities be charitable. Government should be encouraging wealth creation.

1) Even in a flat tax system the rich guy pays more. If he takes home 10x the money he pays 10x the taxes. People always seem to imply that you only pay more in a graduated system.

2) A flat system with a few gradations at the bottom, but with hardly any deduction, is very fair. For example, 2% tax rate for income under 25k for individuals (It seems to me that you need to have skin in the game before you are voting on policies- everyone should pay a little, its democratic), 10% from 25k to 50k, and 25% for everything over 50k with minimal deductions (perhaps only a per child tax deduction (since children are future workers, taxpayers, soldiers, etc., not a lifestyle choice, and they are expensive). No corporate gains rate. No hiding income as corporate earnings retained by the company.

 

[palinurus]

Anybody have any good links re the issue of whether we are really at the lowest or highest or somewhere in between level of taxation in history? I would really like to read something balanced on this, and not the spin and tripe I found while looking for myself.

On one hand, liberal sites say it's the "lowest effect individual federal income tax rates" in history, but that neglects all the other taxes, surcharges, fees, etc., including taxes, such as state and local, corporate, long term cap gains, property, SS, unemployment, et al.

On the other, conservative sites tend to measure by amount of revenues or some calculation related to GDP, which seem besides the point and spin.

But I can't find anything that takes all these factors and discusses each and lays out information so that we can see what's true. A good analysis would break it down by state and by income level.

Like I say, there's a lot of spin out there, and I just want a fair treatment of the issue.

 

[NDBoiler]

Just thought I'd share this, as I've found these interesting to read after every SOTU:

State of the Union Fact Check: Obama's Rhetoric vs. Reality | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo

This is part of the reason why I dislike politicians in general. They will twist the facts and a lot of people will blindly just agree with it because it sounds good, while in reality it is a bunch of half-truths or not true at all. It's not just Obama obviously, it's pretty much all of them. I find it sad that they just can't help being deliberately misleading. My hope is one day a truly honest politician will exist, but probably not because that would be the difficult (i.e. unpopular) decision to make, and Lord knows they are deathly afraid of making such a decision.

 

[BeauBenken]

My friend told me he was going to watch the SOTU, but then he saw Rudy was on.

 

[connor_in]

 

[Ndaccountant]

Anybody have any good links re the issue of whether we are really at the lowest or highest or somewhere in between level of taxation in history? I would really like to read something balanced on this, and not the spin and tripe I found while looking for myself.

On one hand, liberal sites say it's the "lowest effect individual federal income tax rates" in history, but that neglects all the other taxes, surcharges, fees, etc., including taxes, such as state and local, corporate, long term cap gains, property, SS, unemployment, et al.

On the other, conservative sites tend to measure by amount of revenues or some calculation related to GDP, which seem besides the point and spin.

But I can't find anything that takes all these factors and discusses each and lays out information so that we can see what's true. A good analysis would break it down by state and by income level.

Like I say, there's a lot of spin out there, and I just want a fair treatment of the issue.

Here is a link to some data where you can play with the numbers yourself.

I personally like the measurement versus GDP since in essence, it is measuring government revenue relative to production. If I am producing more, total revenue should go up. If I am producing less, it should fall. However, how much collected relative to production seems like the best gauge. Hence, that is why government spending is usually measured as a % of GDP.

2009 was a very low year for federal income tax collection. However, a significant portion of that came from losses in capital markets. Estimated 2013 collection is at 8.12% of GDP, which is actually higher than the first four Clinton years. In reality, 2013 isn't that bad and is normalized.

The real issue is 2014 and beyond with all the additional add on taxes from Obamacare. Based on CBO projections (which the site has), it will rise to 9.4%, which would be pretty darn close to all time highs (10.0) and we have been above 9% only 6 years in history.

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1920-2018 - Federal State Local Data

 

[palinurus]

@NDaccountant
Thanks for the link.

 

[GoIrish41]

Bull. If you're going to disagree at least back it up with something.

While the nation is going through the worst recession since the Great Depression, what did the Republican Party stand up for? Reduction of taxes to the nation's most wealth individuals, increased involvement in two ongoing wars, unnessisary medical procedures for women wanting to have abortions, reduction of social programs, removal of regulations that keep workers safe or from being victimized by corporations, and making it more difficult for people to vote. What are they against? Universal Health Care, immigration reform, Obama getting a second term, expansion of unemployment benefits, the Jobs Act, gay marriage, and everything else that is proposed by the Dems. If they were any further right, they'd fall off the edge.

The Dems, on the other hand, introduce a Republican idea to take a step toward what every president since Nixon tried to do -- universal health care. He has greatly compromised in every contrived budget negotiation since he took offiice (save the last one) to the point where John Boenner bragged that he got "99%" of everything he wanted. Obama made every attempt to reach across the isle and repair the political mistrust created by the previous administration, and was flatly rejected time and again by the GOP. During his attempts, he brought the Dems closer and closer to the center, even volunteering to cuts to social programs to get deals done. If you think that is as far left as the party has ever been, I suggest you do some reading about the Woodrow Wilson and FDR administrations.

And your comment about JFK is just silly. Sure, he was for personal responsibility ... so are the modern Dems. Obama spoke about it last night in his speech when he said that everything worth doing requires hard work and dedication. JFK was as much of a liberal as you would ever find in American history. Some of his legislative accomplishments include:

The Civil Rights Act (although it wasn't signed into law until a year after he died)
Inner-city housing and transportation
Water pollution control act
Increases in Social Security benefits
Increases in minimum wage
Food stamps for low-income Americans
Increased food distribution to the poor, including school lunch programs
Comprehensive farm legislation

Which of these would be supported by the Tea Party? Again, just a silly, silly uniiformed comment.

 

[palinurus]

While the nation is going through the worst recession since the Great Depression, what did the Republican Party stand up for? Reduction of taxes to the nation's most wealth individuals, increased involvement in two ongoing wars, unnessisary medical procedures for women wanting to have abortions, reduction of social programs, removal of regulations that keep workers safe or from being victimized by corporations, and making it more difficult for people to vote. What are they against? Universal Health Care, immigration reform, Obama getting a second term, expansion of unemployment benefits, the Jobs Act, gay marriage, and everything else that is proposed by the Dems. If they were any further right, they'd fall off the edge.

The Dems, on the other hand, introduce a Republican idea to take a step toward what every president since Nixon tried to do -- universal health care. He has greatly compromised in every contrived budget negotiation since he took offiice (save the last one) to the point where John Boenner bragged that he got "99%" of everything he wanted. Obama made every attempt to reach across the isle and repair the political mistrust created by the previous administration, and was flatly rejected time and again by the GOP. During his attempts, he brought the Dems closer and closer to the center, even volunteering to cuts to social programs to get deals done. If you think that is as far left as the party has ever been, I suggest you do some reading about the Woodrow Wilson and FDR administrations.

And your comment about JFK is just silly. Sure, he was for personal responsibility ... so are the modern Dems. Obama spoke about it last night in his speech when he said that everything worth doing requires hard work and dedication. JFK was as much of a liberal as you would ever find in American history. Some of his legislative accomplishments include:

The Civil Rights Act (although it wasn't signed into law until a year after he died)
Inner-city housing and transportation
Water pollution control act
Increases in Social Security benefits
Increases in minimum wage
Food stamps for low-income Americans
Increased food distribution to the poor, including school lunch programs
Comprehensive farm legislation

Which of these would be supported by the Tea Party? Again, just a silly, silly uniiformed comment.

The bolded is grossly misleading.

 

[GoIrish41]

The bolded is grossly misleading.

Is it? Explain why.

 

[palinurus]

Is it? Explain why.

The way you phrased it makes it sound as though Obamacare was once supported by the Republican Party. That's not true and not even close.

What some people who were Republicans proposed in 1990s, as an alternative to a much worse Clinton healthcare bill (which WAS much like Obamacare, but not quite as bad from my perspective), was a bill, sponsored by 18 mostly moderate Republicans (there were a few moderately conservative senators to support it, but mostly it was the liberal ones, like John Chafee who introduced it), to impose an individual mandate. The bill would have given vouchers to poor people to buy health insurance, and it would have penalized those who did not purchase coverage (the individual mandate). It was based on a proposal that some guy at the Heritage Foundation made. But it was never part of the Republican platform, it wasn't sponsored by even half of Senate Republicans, and, most important, it wasn't nearly the broad all-encompassing bill that Obamacare is, nor did it didn't violate conscience rights of Americans in certain provisions. Those are all facts. (Editorially, I would add, too, that it didn't increase healthcare costs or premiums or lead companies to drop insureds, and it wasn't a step toward singlepayer.)

I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, because I think you are well intended and I know a lot of sites say what you said; but it's a talking point that a lot of media sources and spin groups toss out there without (intentionally or otherwise) really looking at it, and it leaves a mis-impression that Obamacare was a Republican idea that is now opposed because a Democrat is proposing it. Even today's liberal Republicans did not support Obamacare and God knows they (McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, eg) are willing to criticize their own party and cross party lines.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

1) thats before the slew of tax breaks, 2) we see record profits too, they must we doing alright.



Which can be explained by reasons other than taxes.

1) For whom?

2) Record profits for everyone? Or a select few?

 

[connor_in]

After a lot of stalemate in 2013, the partisan media think it’s high time for the executive branch to go completely around the legislative branch. They think that now that Congress has proven itself unwilling to provide Barack Obama with the historical greatness he deserves, they should and must be driven around like roadkill. They’ll have no talk of an imperial presidency, let alone autocracy.

On the morning of the speech, ABC’s Jonathan Karl was touting how “the President will announce that he is increasing by nearly $3 an hour the minimum wage on all new federal contracts, acting where he can without Congress." Without any criticism about shredding the balance of powers, Karl announced like a publicist that the president is “promising to work with Congress where he can, but showing there are things he can do on his own as well."

Eight years ago, when Newsweek still mattered, the magazine’s Jonathan Alter cried out: “We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.” Eleanor Clift followed up a few months later. Vladimir Putin “is perceived to be an effective dictator. What we have in this country is a dictator who’s ineffective."

New York Times drama critic Wilborn Hampton honored a play on Prometheus by oozing that “the fifth-century B.C. lessons about the abuse of power by an autocratic ruler who runs roughshod over anyone who disagrees with him are not lost on a 21st-century audience. Just plug in names from today’s headlines for any of the characters.”

Two terms ago, New York Times reporters were winning Pulitzer Prizes and turning out adversarial books with titles like Charlie Savage’s “The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy,” which exposed “how a group of true believers, led by Cheney, set out to establish near-monarchical executive powers.” Eric Lichtblau wrote “Bush’s Law: The Remaking of American Justice,” which railed against “secret programs and policies that tore at the constitutional fabric of the country.”

James Risen penned “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration,” which revealed a “two-front war that President Bush is now fighting,” one abroad and one “at home against Congress and the Supreme Court, as his administration is increasingly reined in from its abuses.”

Now imagine how many Pulitzer prizes and dire-warning books the Times staff is turning out about Barack Obama’s “war at home against Congress” or his “near-monarchical excecutive powers” on drones or Guantanamo. None. Instead, David Sanger wrote “Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” which proclaimed how Obama outshined Bush, “attempting to preserve America’s influence with a lighter, defter touch.”

.

 

[GoIrish41]

The way you phrased it makes it sound as though Obamacare was once supported by the Republican Party. That's not true and not even close.

What some people who were Republicans proposed in 1990s, as an alternative to a much worse Clinton healthcare bill (which WAS much like Obamacare, but not quite as bad from my perspective), was a bill, sponsored by 18 mostly moderate Republicans (there were a few moderately conservative senators to support it, but mostly it was the liberal ones, like John Chafee who introduced it), to impose an individual mandate. The bill would have given vouchers to poor people to buy health insurance, and it would have penalized those who did not purchase coverage (the individual mandate). It was based on a proposal that some guy at the Heritage Foundation made. But it was never part of the Republican platform, it wasn't sponsored by even half of Senate Republicans, and, most important, it wasn't nearly the broad all-encompassing bill that Obamacare is, nor did it didn't violate conscience rights of Americans in certain provisions. Those are all facts. (Editorially, I would add, too, that it didn't increase healthcare costs or premiums or lead companies to drop insureds, and it wasn't a step toward singlepayer.)

I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, because I think you are well intended and I know a lot of sites say what you said; but it's a talking point that a lot of media sources and spin groups toss out there without (intentionally or otherwise) really looking at it, and it leaves a mis-impression that Obamacare was a Republican idea that is now opposed because a Democrat is proposing it. Even today's liberal Republicans did not support Obamacare and God knows they (McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, eg) are willing to criticize their own party and cross party lines.

The Irony of Obamacare: Republicans Thought of It First

“An irony of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is that one of its key provisions, the individual insurance mandate, has conservative origins. In Congress, the requirement that individuals to purchase health insurance first emerged in Republican health care reform bills introduced in 1993 as alternatives to the Clinton plan. The mandate was also a prominent feature of the Massachusetts plan passed under Governor Mitt Romney in 2006. According to Romney, ‘we got the idea of an individual mandate from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation.’”

 

[palinurus]

The Irony of Obamacare: Republicans Thought of It First

“An irony of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is that one of its key provisions, the individual insurance mandate, has conservative origins. In Congress, the requirement that individuals to purchase health insurance first emerged in Republican health care reform bills introduced in 1993 as alternatives to the Clinton plan. The mandate was also a prominent feature of the Massachusetts plan passed under Governor Mitt Romney in 2006. According to Romney, ‘we got the idea of an individual mandate from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation.’”

Their quote is misleading for the reasons I've already described. They are referencing the same bill I mentioned in my post and it is misleading to say it had "conservative origins." It was introduced by liberal Republican John Chafee and most of the Republican co-sponsors (there were 18, I think) we from the moderate/liberal wing of the party, people like Slade Gorton and Nancy Kassebaum.

I also said that it was the individual mandate that was proposed, but also noted that that is just one problem with Obamacare. The bill, as you may know, is much more than just a "you must buy and if you can't we'll give you a voucher" bill that the link (and I) referenced.

It is also misleading to represent that that one provision is tantamount to "Obamacare," for the reasons I said in my post.

It is also misleading to conflate Romney, who proposed the mandate as a STATE matter, and his actions in Massachusetts, with support for Obamacare. Completely different in scope, nature and content. Btw, Gingrich admits only that it the idea for the individual mandate came from Heritage (as I also said) but that it wasn't "his idea."

It's also misleading because it implies Romney is conservative, which is also patently false.

So if you are posting the reply to agree with me, great. If you believe it contradicts me, it doesn't. It supports me.

 

[ACamp1900]

Because one component of a 2,000 plus page bill came from a small group of republicans years ago the entire bill was a conservative idea… seems legit.

 

[phgreek]

The way you phrased it makes it sound as though Obamacare was once supported by the Republican Party. That's not true and not even close.

What some people who were Republicans proposed in 1990s, as an alternative to a much worse Clinton healthcare bill (which WAS much like Obamacare, but not quite as bad from my perspective), was a bill, sponsored by 18 mostly moderate Republicans (there were a few moderately conservative senators to support it, but mostly it was the liberal ones, like John Chafee who introduced it), to impose an individual mandate. The bill would have given vouchers to poor people to buy health insurance, and it would have penalized those who did not purchase coverage (the individual mandate). It was based on a proposal that some guy at the Heritage Foundation made. But it was never part of the Republican platform, it wasn't sponsored by even half of Senate Republicans, and, most important, it wasn't nearly the broad all-encompassing bill that Obamacare is, nor did it didn't violate conscience rights of Americans in certain provisions. Those are all facts. (Editorially, I would add, too, that it didn't increase healthcare costs or premiums or lead companies to drop insureds, and it wasn't a step toward singlepayer.)

I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, because I think you are well intended and I know a lot of sites say what you said; but it's a talking point that a lot of media sources and spin groups toss out there without (intentionally or otherwise) really looking at it, and it leaves a mis-impression that Obamacare was a Republican idea that is now opposed because a Democrat is proposing it. Even today's liberal Republicans did not support Obamacare and God knows they (McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, eg) are willing to criticize their own party and cross party lines.

WHAT...but snopes said...and well all the MSNBC folks...and...and...

The point here is that it NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER would have gotten serious consideration from conservatives enmass, and NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER would have been part of the platform...Did I say EVER?

Its a tired attempt at painting hypocrisy on the republican party and conservatives in general through conflating the thoughts of a small corner of the Rs of the time with everyone conservative or R...I'm not even sure they who brought it forward believed in it as much as they wanted to have an alternative to "Hillary Care"...if that thing ever got legs...it didn't, and the "alternative" plan was traded in for a stray dog they could take out back and shoot...

Now I'll go away and brace for the Romney care gem...

 

[Rizzophil]

I still can't believe people think democrats have good policy. They get the government too involved and muck it up. It's proven true every time.

Unfortunately Republicans go out and say big government doesn't work and then go out and prove how bad they are


Also, there is a huge different between being fair and being equal. Americans that don't understand the two are a product of not understanding the constitution.

 

[Goldedommer44]

Here is a chart for corporate taxes rates

File:US Effective Corporate Tax Rate 1947-2011 v2.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you don't like Wiki I can pull it from some place else. I will also post a link for how much individual taxes rates have dropped over the years as well shortly

 

[Ndaccountant]

Here is a chart for corporate taxes rates

File:US Effective Corporate Tax Rate 1947-2011 v2.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you don't like Wiki I can pull it from some place else. I will also post a link for how much individual taxes rates have dropped over the years as well shortly

But how does that translate to actual government receipts? Rates mean nothing unless revenue is actually collected.

 

[palinurus]

Here is a chart for corporate taxes rates

File:US Effective Corporate Tax Rate 1947-2011 v2.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you don't like Wiki I can pull it from some place else. I will also post a link for how much individual taxes rates have dropped over the years as well shortly

This is interesting, but I would like to see something that discuss the complete "tax" burden, ie, one that includes the whole range of taxes, fees, surcharges, etc., that many Americans face. That's really the test of the burden. To the extent we break it down and say, "well, this tax rate went down, or this one went up," it doesn't tell the whole story. In other words, if you say we're cutting federal tax rates, but my state taxes go up to cover the increased burden shifted to the state, my burden didn't really get any lighter. Honestly, I'm not forum shopping; I'm trying to get an honest look at whether the burden has gone up, how much, from what and on whom.

 

[Goldedommer44]

Palinurus, that would be EXTREMELY. Hard to find out and you would have to cross reference state data and national data. I don't know of a site that does that. Here is the individual taxes rate attached to an article talking about taxes.

THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

 

[Goldedommer44]

I would love to find a site that could tell me how a decrease in national taxes impacted the state tax system as well as city taxes. I know that I live in a city that just started to collect local income tax to help off set the lack of state and federal dollars to the city. If someone finds one please post it .

 

[palinurus]

I would love to find a site that could tell me how a decrease in national taxes impacted the state tax system as well as city taxes. I know that I live in a city that just started to collect local income tax to help off set the lack of state and federal dollars to the city. If someone finds one please post it .

This effect was compounded by Congressionally-imposed state mandates in many areas. And this isn't just a left-right issue btw; both parties have done it when running Congress.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Palinurus, that would be EXTREMELY. Hard to find out and you would have to cross reference state data and national data. I don't know of a site that does that. Here is the individual taxes rate attached to an article talking about taxes.

THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

That is a pretty stale article considering the increases that have take place since then. Additionally, it's rate based, which means very little.