Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
if you are taking one part of America and assuming that it is the same and relevant to today, then there is no need to debate anymore. Its not the same. Soooooooooo many things have changed, hell even the people have changed in power.

we have to stick to the factors of today and the future. What FDR did, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush have done only matter in that they have put us in the position that we are in. I dont care how bad Carter was or how you may feel about Bush policies, because they cant be changed. What we can say is this:

we are in a budget CRISIS
Our debt is rising at record levels
we are spending more than we are taking in
we have a bigger government than just 5 years ago
I believe we import more than we export
Unemployment is stagnant at 7+
the quality of life for americans is nothing something we brag about
we have programs that are going BK and drain this economy

.... Im sure we can add more to that.... so now, knowing all that, do you want to grow government or do you reduce the federal dependence? Before you answer that, shift this to your own home. Put your household in the spot of america. You turn to your wife who just happens to be price checking for a new car and a tiffanys watch, do you tell her honey click purchase or do you pull the plug from the computer before she can click purchase and tell her we have to change the way we live?

I get really tired of the talk from the GOP that the Democrats want big government and The GOP assertion that they are the party of smaller government is just laughable. Here is a historical perspective on the "size of government."

Jimmy Carter began his term in 1976 with 2,883,000 nonmilitary federal employees
He left office in 1980 with 2,875,000 or 8,000 fewer government employees.

When Reagan began his first term in 1981 he started with 2,875,000 federal employees.
He ended his second term with 3,113,000 or 238,000 more government employees.

George H.W. Bush is the only Republican since the 1980s to actually shrink the size of government beginning with 3,113,000 and ending with 3,083,000 or a reduction of 30,000 employees.

When Bill Clinton came into office there were 3,083,000 federal workers. He proclaimed during his administration that "the era of big government is over." Apparently he meant it, because at the end of his second term, there were 2,703,000 federal employees or 380,000 fewer than when he began.

When Bush Jr. took office, he began with 2,703,000 federal employees and ended with 2,756,000 or an increase of 53,000.

Obama began with 2,756,000 employees and while there has been an increase in government employees, there are fewer government workers today (2,840,000) than there were in 1980 before Reagan increased the size of the government workforce by 10%.
 
Last edited:

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
I get really tired of the talk from the GOP that the Democrats want big government and The GOP assertion that they are the party of smaller government is just laughable. Here is a historical perspective on the "size of government."

Jimmy Carter began his term in 1976 with 2,883,000 nonmilitary federal employees
He left office in 1980 with 2,875,000 or 8,000 fewer government employees.

When Reagan began his first term in 1981 he started with 2,875,000 federal employees.
He ended his second term with 3,113,000 or 238,000 more government employees.

George H.W. Bush is the only Republican since the 1980s to actually shrink the size of government beginning with 3,113,000 and ending with 3,083,000 or a reduction of 30,000 employees.

When Bill Clinton came into office there were 3,083,000 federal workers. He proclaimed during his administration that "the era of big government is over." Apparently he meant it, because at the end of his second term, there were 2,703,000 federal employees or 380,000 fewer than when he began.

When Bush Jr. took office, he began with 2,703,000 federal employees and ended with 2,756,000 or an increase of 53,000.

Obama began with 2,756,000 employees and while there has been an increase in government employees, there are fewer government workers today (2,840,000) than there were in 1980 before Reagan increased the size of the government workforce by 10%.

While I get what you are saying, using EE's is hardly the way to look it. I could employ 2 people part time or employ one person full time. Does that really change the size of my company? Additionally, many jobs that were around in 1970's and 1980's are gone as technology has improved. Using EE's as a gauge for the scope of government is a bad choice, IMO.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Question:

Is the stock market ruining America?

Here are some of my thoughts behind the question. I'd like to hear your opinion.

· While most of the country is still feeling the effects of a broken economy, the stock market is set to hit a record high.

· Does being a publicly traded company put unrealistic expectations on companies?

· Is the pressure to produce unrealistic business results driving companies to slash wages and their workforce?

· Even if you're part of a privately held company you can't escape wall streets squeeze, chances are many or most of your suppliers and your bank are publicly traded.

· Are CEO' s ever going to see payroll as an investment again or just as a huge expense?

· Is the thinking in corporate America now that the only way to maintain profitably is to keep wages and benefits low?

· Are workers 401k and retirement plans based largely on stocks destroying their jobs?

· Flat or slow growth, even if your company is profitable has become unacceptable?

I'd like to hear your thoughts.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
While I get what you are saying, using EE's is hardly the way to look it. I could employ 2 people part time or employ one person full time. Does that really change the size of my company? Additionally, many jobs that were around in 1970's and 1980's are gone as technology has improved. Using EE's as a gauge for the scope of government is a bad choice, IMO.

What would you use?
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
What would you use?

I would use two metrics, spend % of GDP (although I loathe this, since I think as GDP rises, efficiencies should rise too, thus lowering our spend) and # of regulations.

When I talk about the size and scope of government, there is more too it than just $'s or headcount.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Does anyone know how income tax started?

It was initially unconstitutional versus individuals, because it had to be allocated among the states. (The Framers never thought the federal gov't could levy tax on individuals' incomes.) Enter the 16th Amendment in early 1900's.

I've heard that one of the main drivers of the 16th Amendment was that Prohibition couldn't have happened without it, because the loss in federal liqour taxes would be too drastic. I'm sure that's probably an over-simplification though.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
While I get what you are saying, using EE's is hardly the way to look it. I could employ 2 people part time or employ one person full time. Does that really change the size of my company? Additionally, many jobs that were around in 1970's and 1980's are gone as technology has improved. Using EE's as a gauge for the scope of government is a bad choice, IMO.

+1. And it doesn't account for non-employee contractors or other vendors.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
It was initially unconstitutional versus individuals, because it had to be allocated among the states. (The Framers never thought the federal gov't could levy tax on individuals' incomes.) Enter the 16th Amendment in early 1900's.

I've heard that one of the main drivers of the 16th Amendment was that Prohibition couldn't have happened without it, because the loss in federal liqour taxes would be too drastic. I'm sure that's probably an over-simplification though.

Been a long time since I took my tax classes, but if memory serves me well our first income tax was actually passed to help pay for the civil war but was disbanded after it was paid for. It wasn't until the 16th amendment that it became law again. It was used to reduce dependence on tariffs and the grow the military, in a time where other world powers were building large forces.

Could be missing some things, but that is what I can recall.
 
Last edited:

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
^I think one was passed, but it was still unconstitutional. Remember, Lincoln also unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas and suspended the Maryland legislature.
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
One line in the long Thom Hartmann post that Chicage51 put up caught my eye.

"But the banks made a ton of money selling off that bad debt to other investors before the market went bust, and skimming fees off the top of every single transaction."

"Skimming fees off the top of every single transaction" sounds like our current tax system. We already have: federal & state income taxes, property taxes, city wage taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, luxury good taxes, additional taxes on bonus income (at a higher rate even if you aren't rich), gasoline tax, gross receipts tax, sin taxes (booze, cigs, gambling), telephone service fees, surcharges and taxes (look at your phone bill).

Well, you get the idea. And on top of this we apparently need a VAT and a stock trading or transaction tax as well as a millionaire tax bracket.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I would use two metrics, spend % of GDP (although I loathe this, since I think as GDP rises, efficiencies should rise too, thus lowering our spend) and # of regulations.

When I talk about the size and scope of government, there is more too it than just $'s or headcount.

But what we are talking about is out of control spending. The context of the "big government" argument is that government costs too much money and should be downsized. A huge amount of the federal budget goes to paying employees. That is not a headcount as each one of the "heads" is an expense that adds to the nation's "spending problem."

If this budget "crisis" is about something more philisophical than dollars and cents, then the Republicans really ought to be up front about it. If I'm going to be furloughed over a political philosophy and not a real money issue than the the GOP shouldn't hide behind the budget and we should have a real debate in this country about the philosophical differences. I suspect that would not go well for Republicans though.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Question:

Is the stock market ruining America?

Here are some of my thoughts behind the question. I'd like to hear your opinion.

· While most of the country is still feeling the effects of a broken economy, the stock market is set to hit a record high.

· Does being a publicly traded company put unrealistic expectations on companies?

· Is the pressure to produce unrealistic business results driving companies to slash wages and their workforce?

· Even if you're part of a privately held company you can't escape wall streets squeeze, chances are many or most of your suppliers and your bank are publicly traded.

· Are CEO' s ever going to see payroll as an investment again or just as a huge expense?

· Is the thinking in corporate America now that the only way to maintain profitably is to keep wages and benefits low?

· Are workers 401k and retirement plans based largely on stocks destroying their jobs?

· Flat or slow growth, even if your company is profitable has become unacceptable?

I'd like to hear your thoughts.


The problem with this, is that the stock market has created more millionaires over night than any government has.


And what's the alternative? I mean, if it weren't for 401k's...how would one save enough for retirement? Rely on SS? LOL....

"Poor" in this country is 40k a year. Let that sink in. As far as keeping wages low, thta's not the issue. Look at the pro-union states where they pay asinine wages for non-skilled jobs and are on the hook for their retirement as well...they're in the tank.

So if paying workers was the issue, those states would be fluourishing, no? Yes, you need to pay a competitive wage to attract top talent, but that is all. You dont' have to pay because you feel the need to give someone a better quality of life (you go broke doing that...because it's never enough). You pay enough to run your business model and make it work.

I think if you know what you're doing (like anything else), the stock market is a fantastic tool. Hell, it beats the alternative.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
One line in the long Thom Hartmann post that Chicage51 put up caught my eye.

"But the banks made a ton of money selling off that bad debt to other investors before the market went bust, and skimming fees off the top of every single transaction."

"Skimming fees off the top of every single transaction" sounds like our current tax system. We already have: federal & state income taxes, property taxes, city wage taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, luxury good taxes, additional taxes on bonus income (at a higher rate even if you aren't rich), gasoline tax, gross receipts tax, sin taxes (booze, cigs, gambling), telephone service fees, surcharges and taxes (look at your phone bill).

Well, you get the idea. And on top of this we apparently need a VAT and a stock trading or transaction tax as well as a millionaire tax bracket.

but banks are the biggest crooks...
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
But what we are talking about is out of control spending. The context of the "big government" argument is that government costs too much money and should be downsized. A huge amount of the federal budget goes to paying employees. That is not a headcount as each one of the "heads" is an expense that adds to the nation's "spending problem."

If this budget "crisis" is about something more philisophical than dollars and cents, then the Republicans really ought to be up front about it. If I'm going to be furloughed over a political philosophy and not a real money issue than the the GOP shouldn't hide behind the budget and we should have a real debate in this country about the philosophical differences. I suspect that would not go well for Republicans though.

Apples and organges here in what we are discussing.

To be clear, I believe we do have a spending problem. In total, our federal spend % of GDP was 23% last year. That is still 1-1.5% too high compared to previous norms. This has to do with entitlements for the most part, but spending is rising faster than inflation (which I think was 2.8% annually for the last decade). See below.

SR-fed-spending-numbers-2012-p3-table-2_HIGHRES.jpg
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
But what we are talking about is out of control spending. The context of the "big government" argument is that government costs too much money and should be downsized. A huge amount of the federal budget goes to paying employees. That is not a headcount as each one of the "heads" is an expense that adds to the nation's "spending problem."

If this budget "crisis" is about something more philisophical than dollars and cents, then the Republicans really ought to be up front about it. If I'm going to be furloughed over a political philosophy and not a real money issue than the the GOP shouldn't hide behind the budget and we should have a real debate in this country about the philosophical differences. I suspect that would not go well for Republicans though.

I tend to vote Republican, and have no problem with federal "employees" by themselves. If they'd all work for free, then heck, hire a gazillion. It's not a people problem it's a spending problem.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I tend to vote Republican, and have no problem with federal "employees" by themselves. If they'd all work for free, then heck, hire a gazillion. It's not a people problem it's a spending problem.

Well, we spend about $230 billion a year on federal employees. NDaccountant suggests that this is apples and oranges. I believe that an expense that represnets about 16 percent of the total federal budget is clearly not beside the point when we are discussing federal expenditures. The amount we spend of federal salaries is more than we pay for Net Interest on the debt, Income Security Programs, Transportation, Food Stamps, Federal Retirement Benefits and VA benefits and almost every other line item on the chart that NDaccountant has posted.

The argument I'm trying to make is that it is the GOP, not the Dems, that are responsible for the vast majority of increases in the size of the federal workforce (again, 16% of the total federal budget). When Reagan increased the size of the government workforce by 10 percent during his two terms why were Republicans were not going ape sh*t over "big government" and out of control spending? I just think that their position has no credibility.

We spend money on employees because they provide valuable services to all levels of government -- from border patrol agents to scientists who perform valuable S&T work that protects soldiers from harm to workers who maintain this country's infrastructure. All of those things cost money.
 
Last edited:

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Well, we spend about $230 billion a year on federal employees. NDaccountant suggests that this is apples and oranged). I believe that an expense that represnets about 16 percent of the total federal budget is clearly not beside the point when we are discussing federal expenditures. The amount we spend of federal salaries is more than we pay for Net Interest on the debt, Income Security Programs, Transportation, Food Stamps, Federal Retirement Benefits and VA benefits and almost every other line item on the chart that NDaccountant has posted.

The argument I'm trying to make is that it is the GOP, not the Dems, are responsible for the vast majority of increases in the size of the federal workforce (again, 16% of the total federal budget). When Reagan increased the size of the government workforce by 10 percent during his two terms why were Republicans were not going ape sh*t over "big government" and out of control spending? I just think that their position has no credibility.

We spend money on employees because they provide valuable services to all levels of government -- from border patrol agents to scientists who perform valuable S&T work that protects soldiers from harm to workers who maintain this country's infrastructure. All of those things cost money.

To be clear, what I thought was apples and orange was my original point a few posts back and what you were discussing, which was the impact of the sequestor. My views on government were broader and were not intended to be directed to one specific item.

To your point on Reagan, where did the increases come from? Did the Cold War have anything to do with the increase? I think we need much more detail before reaching a conclusion. And even if he did, why does everyone assume that because someone likes the idea of controlling government spending assume said person agrees with everything Reagan did?

Finally, conservatives that I know are not about saying that people employed do not provide a service or that all gov't spending is bad. Instead, we say why do we have so much inefficiency? Why do we spend money on useless things? Why do we create a new agency everytime something bad happens? Why can't we be smarter with how we spend?
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
To be clear, what I thought was apples and orange was my original point a few posts back and what you were discussing, which was the impact of the sequestor. My views on government were broader and were not intended to be directed to one specific item.

To your point on Reagan, where did the increases come from? Did the Cold War have anything to do with the increase? I think we need much more detail before reaching a conclusion. And even if he did, why does everyone assume that because someone likes the idea of controlling government spending assume said person agrees with everything Reagan did?

Finally, conservatives that I know are not about saying that people employed do not provide a service or that all gov't spending is bad. Instead, we say why do we have so much inefficiency? Why do we spend money on useless things? Why do we create a new agency everytime something bad happens? Why can't we be smarter with how we spend?

Sorry if I misunderstood your previous post.

On the point about Reagan -- you make a good point. Nobody is asking this question about Obama's administration. Conservatives I know, and those on this board, are not willing to acknowledge that an increase in government spending was necessary to pull this country out of the recession, that he inherited two ongoing wars, that Obamacare provided healthcare for millions who didn't have it before. Most are admonishing him for "spending more than has ever been spent before." A simple adjustment for inflation and nothing else would mean that he is spending more than anyone in history. I'm not aware of a time in recent history in which the government spent less money during an administration than in the previous one.

It is not just conservatives who are saying what you say in the bolded portion above. Just about everyone I know is saying that. But this stupid stalemate Congress is not helping. For example, over the past several years, we have been under a continuing resolution. In the Defense Department that means that no purchases of new equipment (new weapons systems, new aircraft, improved body armor, etc.) can be made. Instead, a continuing resolution means that we are forced to continue buying older weapons systems, aircraft, body armor, (the same stuff we bought last year) because nothing new can be added to the budget. Slowly, this is degrading our military. At some point after a budget is finally passed, all of the new systems and equipment that we didn't buy over the past few years will be purchased and a we'll be left with whole lot of old obsolete equipment. That is a huge inefficiency created by Congress because they can't compromise.

This sequester, which everyone believes is a bad idea, was also an inefficiency created by Congress. We should indeed spend money more efficiently and that should start with Congress not being so f*cking childish.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Over those that think we over tax and over spend, the numbers just don't pan out. Just like the idea of tax breaks on the rich creating jobs just don't pan out. You can't point other theories for why that is but the numbers just don't make the case for it.

2010_National_Spending_per_GDP_comparison.jpg


Notice we are below the 34% average in tax burden as well.
284D2C1B0183482F8DAA47F339F7F856.gif
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
Over those that think we over tax and over spend, the numbers just don't pan out. Just like the idea of tax breaks on the rich creating jobs just don't pan out. You can't point other theories for why that is but the numbers just don't make the case for it.

2010_National_Spending_per_GDP_comparison.jpg


Notice we are below the 34% average in tax burden as well.
284D2C1B0183482F8DAA47F339F7F856.gif

buh buh buh but look, other countries tax and spend more than we do!

really? this is your argument? lol
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Not sure if this going load right using the phone. About taxes and growth.

taxratesgrowth.jpg

I am reposting this because more people are on today than over the weekend. Again were is this evidence that top end tax rates just kill jobs? I have been actually looking for it and have not found very much.

Insteresting story...
I did find that a national tax on luxury boats passed by George HW Bush did kill jobs in the luxury boat building in Road Island. Although it beause it only applied to new boats, and not used boats so people apparently just kept buying used boats. Bill Clinton in his debt reduction bill actually replead the luxury tax on boats to get the last Senator he needed to get to 50 votes in the Senate allowing Al Gore as Vice President to break the time which got taxes raised.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
buh buh buh but look, other countries tax and spend more than we do!

really? this is your argument? lol

So what is your arguement for not closing loopholes on the rich?

Because even though their is no evidence of tax breaks on the rich creating jobs, it has beeen shown to create a bigger income gap between the top and the bottom which is totally a good thing.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Over those that think we over tax and over spend, the numbers just don't pan out. Just like the idea of tax breaks on the rich creating jobs just don't pan out. You can't point other theories for why that is but the numbers just don't make the case for it.

2010_National_Spending_per_GDP_comparison.jpg

The only thing this chart shows is that for developed countries there is a correlation between higher GDP and lower gov't spending per GDP. That is, as the gov't spends less per GDP, its total GDP grows.

You can almost literally draw a straight line from Norway to the U.S.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,621
Reaction score
2,718
That graph tells you nothing about growth or per capita discretionary income. Pretty picture though.

This is also an increasingly global economy. The high tax crowd does not seem to like concept of capital flowing to where it is treated best. Lowering corporate income taxes and eliminating the tax on repatriated earnings would be plenty of catalyst to rocket us out of the doldrums. Two trillion stimulus overnight, probably more when you account for foreign investment above and beyond what our own companies have in the overseas piggy bank.
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
Mar 3, 12:55 PM EST

Tax bills for rich families approach 30-year high

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The poor rich.

With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.

President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress say the wealthy must pay their fair share if the federal government is ever going to fix its finances and reduce the budget deficit to a manageable level.

A new analysis, however, shows that average tax bills for high-income families rarely have been higher since the Congressional Budget Office began tracking the data in 1979. Middle- and low-income families aren't paying as much as they used to.

For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top 1 percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent.

Those tax rates, which include income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes, are among the highest since 1979.

The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households won't pay any federal taxes. Instead, many families in this group will get payments from the federal government by claiming more in credits than they owe in taxes, including payroll taxes. That will give them a negative tax rate.

"My sense is that high-income people feel abused by being targeted always for more taxes," Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said. "You can understand why they feel that way."

Last week, Senate Democrats were unable to advance their proposal to raise taxes on some wealthy families for the second time this year as part of a package to avoid automatic spending cuts. The bill failed Thursday when Republicans blocked it. A competing Republican bill that included no tax increases also failed, and the automatic spending cuts began taking effect Friday.

The issue, however, isn't going away.

Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress insist that any future deal to reduce government borrowing must include a mix of spending cuts and more tax revenue.

"I am prepared to do hard things and to push my Democratic friends to do hard things," Obama said Friday. "But what I can't do is ask middle-class families, ask seniors, ask students to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction when we know we've got a bunch of tax loopholes that are benefiting the well-off and the well-connected, aren't contributing to growth, aren't contributing to our economy. It's not fair. It's not right."

On Sunday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Republicans are committed to reducing the budget deficit without raising taxes again. In a separate broadcast interview, White House economic adviser Gene Sperling called that position unreasonable.

The Democrats' sequester bill included the "Buffett Rule," named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett. It gradually would phase in a requirement that people making more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes.

The rule targets millionaires who make most of their money from investments - capital gains and qualified dividends, which have a top tax rate of 20 percent.

"It's fairness," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "We're not raising taxes with the Buffett rule as much as we are correcting an inequity in terms of, one guy can be working at one end of the hall and because he's working with hedge funds, he gets taxed at 20 percent. Another guy at the other end of the hall is on a salary at an insurance company and he has to pay (39.6 percent). That's just not fair."

On average, households making more than $1 million this year will pay 37.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center. But there are exceptions.

For example, the Internal Revenue Service tracks tax returns for the 400 highest-paid filers each year. Those taxpayers made an average of $202 million in 2009, the latest year available. Their average federal income tax rate: 19.9 percent.

That's still higher than the tax rate paid by most middle-income families, but not by much.

The middle 20 percent of U.S. households - those making an average of $46,600 - will pay an average of 13.8 percent of their income in federal taxes for this year, according to the Tax Policy Center. Over the past three decades, the average federal tax rate for this group has been about 16 percent.

The Associated Press analyzed two sets of data to compare tax burdens over time.

The CBO produces data from 1979 to 2009; the center has overlapping data from 2004 through 2013. Both get tax data from the IRS, but they use slightly different methodologies to calculate federal tax burdens.

Still, their numbers track closely enough to make some general observations. For example, it is clear that for 2013, average tax bills for the wealthy will be among the highest since 1979. It also is clear that federal taxes for middle- and low-income households will stay well below their averages for the same period.

Liberals and many Democrats say rich families can afford to pay higher taxes because their incomes have grown much more than incomes for middle- and low-income families.

Average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent of households more than doubled from 1979 to 2009, increasing by 155 percent, according to the CBO. Average incomes for those in the middle increased by just 32 percent during the same period while those at the bottom saw their incomes go up by 45 percent.

"You've got to think about the context," said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. "We just had three decades in the United States where we had a tremendous increase in inequality."

The growing disparity in income is a big reason why tax bills for the rich are approaching 30-year highs, Williams said. As the rich get richer, a greater share of their income is taxed at the top rate, he said.

High-income families also have been targeted by tax increases this year, including a new tax law passed by Congress on Jan. 1 as well as tax increases in the president's health care law.

The new tax law made the federal income tax more progressive, increasing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, on taxable income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples filing jointly. Lower tax rates on income below those amounts were made permanent. Also, tax breaks for low-income families first enacted as part of Obama's 2009 stimulus package were extended through 2017.

Conservatives say raising taxes again on the wealthy would reduce their incentive to save and invest, hurting long-term economic growth.

"Raising taxes hurts the economy, and raising taxes on upper-income individuals - whether those who work for salaries or those who save and earn capital income - always hurts the economy the most," said J.D. Foster, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Spite and envy are not sound bases for public policy."

Besides, Republican leaders in Congress say, one tax increase a year is more than enough.

"Let's make it clear that the president got his tax hikes on Jan. 1," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Friday. "This discussion about revenue, in my view, is over."

News from The Associated Press
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Sorry if I misunderstood your previous post.

On the point about Reagan -- you make a good point. Nobody is asking this question about Obama's administration. Conservatives I know, and those on this board, are not willing to acknowledge that an increase in government spending was necessary to pull this country out of the recession, that he inherited two ongoing wars, that Obamacare provided healthcare for millions who didn't have it before. Most are admonishing him for "spending more than has ever been spent before." A simple adjustment for inflation and nothing else would mean that he is spending more than anyone in history. I'm not aware of a time in recent history in which the government spent less money during an administration than in the previous one.

It is not just conservatives who are saying what you say in the bolded portion above. Just about everyone I know is saying that. But this stupid stalemate Congress is not helping. For example, over the past several years, we have been under a continuing resolution. In the Defense Department that means that no purchases of new equipment (new weapons systems, new aircraft, improved body armor, etc.) can be made. Instead, a continuing resolution means that we are forced to continue buying older weapons systems, aircraft, body armor, (the same stuff we bought last year) because nothing new can be added to the budget. Slowly, this is degrading our military. At some point after a budget is finally passed, all of the new systems and equipment that we didn't buy over the past few years will be purchased and a we'll be left with whole lot of old obsolete equipment. That is a huge inefficiency created by Congress because they can't compromise.

This sequester, which everyone believes is a bad idea, was also an inefficiency created by Congress. We should indeed spend money more efficiently and that should start with Congress not being so f*cking childish.

Let's not forget the wars/conflicts he put us in and the fact that the ACA is going to cost us trillions of dollars long after he's gone.

I don't see how that helps your point at all....


Both parties spend too much. Our government has zero accountablity. That is what has to change.
 
Top