Politics

[RDU Irish]

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

Interesting compilation of tax rate and taxes as a % of GDP. Interesting conclusions that are much more debatable than the article declares:

"This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

- Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

- Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

- Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

- Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

- Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up."

For one, look at how much more lower income people paid in the past? The focus only on rates on the rich is disingenous. This article also ignores total revenue. Lower tax rates generally provide more money for growing the economy which leads to higher net collections, however there is an unknown inflection point at which this becomes false (Laffer Curve). This, of course, assumes the goal is maximum government revenue, which is pretty much the case for every politician except those with last name Paul.

 

[RDU Irish]

As someone voting for Romney let me provide some constructive criticism of Republicans:

Obsession on lowering tax brackets is dumb. The difference between 35% and 40% for someone making $400,000 per year is significant but hardly crippling. More crippling is the byzantine tax code and fear of the IRS. Also a flat 10% estate tax on anything over $500,000. All estates benefit from a step up in cost basis at death and this is more functional than tracking cost basis on Aunt Tilly's GE stock she bought in the 1950s and dividend reinvested since. It is also a managable percentage that would not cripple a closely held business versus a 55% tax bill on an illiquid asset.

Permanently lowered corporate taxes is the way to propel our economy. If we had both the best political environment and lowest tax rates for companies they would do more work here. 15% top end corporate rate and 5% repatriation of profits, permanent. No deductions or loopholes for any corporations, don't need them at these rates. If you want to produce things and put people to work, take best care of the entity that does this.

I will never see this in my lifetime but the economic potential is enormous. Consumption tax replaces all other taxes coupled with a pre-bate to all citizens to cover taxes on a subsistence level of spending. Whether you make $1 or $1 million, you get a monthly pre-bate of say $500 (family of four gets $2000) to do as you wish (total cost of under $200 billion). This alleviates stress on welfare, unemployment, social security, etc. Built in welfare with the only qualification of being a citizen, thus squeezing out illegals competitively. Any dollar you make stays in your pocket so you have full motivation to work. This would offset $2500 of monthly spending per person if the tax was 20%. Now Americans are incentivized to save instead of spend.

At least acknowlege the "military industrial complex" argument of Ron Paul. We can cut defense spending 20% and maintain global dominance. Armed forces already have plans in the works to function on half the current budget because they recognize our fiscal mess as the #1 threat to national security, not a bunch of nuts hanging out with goats in caves. If we had paid each family of a 9/11 victim $30 million and turned the other cheek (with a more watchful and defensive posture for the future) we would be far ahead economically versus blowing a trillion bucks in the Middle East. Can't tell me we couldn't have used covert ops and drones to kill bad guys for 1/10th of the cost and still gotten th point across that we are not amused by their jihad.

Social Security, raise the age for anyone under 60. Add one month for every year younger than 60, maxed at three years for 24 and under. Then make employees pay the entire nut so government can't hide half the cost on the corporate ledger.

Immigration. Work visas for anyone with a pulse. 10 year clean record and you can be fast tracked for citizenship. No automatic citizenship for anchor babies. If you are here illegally and giving birth, your kid is not an American. If you want to be American, welcome. If you just want to work and eventually go home, that is great too but we will tax the crap out of you to make citizens more economically competitive.

Drugs are a health issue not a criminal issue. Legalizing drugs cuts our incarceration rate in half, reduces pressure on law enforcement, undermines a lot of criminal elements and raises tax revenue by bringing black market into the open. Same goes for online poker. Regulate and tax, don't forbid.

End rant.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

With you on this one -- scrap the whole IRC for a national sales tax.

Tax consumption, not production. Let Apple/Google/Intel bring their trillions in foreign cash back to the U.S. Stop making employees liabilities -- let companies hire them. End the cheating, manipulation and audit-lottery games. End the lobbyists looking for tax loopholes.

If the candlemakers were able to find new jobs after the lightbulb, I don't see why lobbyists, H&R Block and tax lawyers won't be able to after tax-simplification.

 

[RDU Irish]

Abortion and gay marriage are non-issues. If you vote on this, stay home. They can take a four year sebatical as we have much more important issues to tackle and is the status quo really that unbearable or any side of these issues? More of these issues are between the involved parties and God, not government.

Lights fuse and walks away.......

 

[Redbar]

As someone voting for Romney let me provide some constructive criticism of Republicans:

Obsession on lowering tax brackets is dumb. The difference between 35% and 40% for someone making $400,000 per year is significant but hardly crippling. More crippling is the byzantine tax code and fear of the IRS. Also a flat 10% estate tax on anything over $500,000. All estates benefit from a step up in cost basis at death and this is more functional than tracking cost basis on Aunt Tilly's GE stock she bought in the 1950s and dividend reinvested since. It is also a managable percentage that would not cripple a closely held business versus a 55% tax bill on an illiquid asset.

Permanently lowered corporate taxes is the way to propel our economy. If we had both the best political environment and lowest tax rates for companies they would do more work here. 15% top end corporate rate and 5% repatriation of profits, permanent. No deductions or loopholes for any corporations, don't need them at these rates. If you want to produce things and put people to work, take best care of the entity that does this.

I will never see this in my lifetime but the economic potential is enormous. Consumption tax replaces all other taxes coupled with a pre-bate to all citizens to cover taxes on a subsistence level of spending. Whether you make $1 or $1 million, you get a monthly pre-bate of say $500 (family of four gets $2000) to do as you wish (total cost of under $200 billion). This alleviates stress on welfare, unemployment, social security, etc. Built in welfare with the only qualification of being a citizen, thus squeezing out illegals competitively. Any dollar you make stays in your pocket so you have full motivation to work. This would offset $2500 of monthly spending per person if the tax was 20%. Now Americans are incentivized to save instead of spend.

At least acknowlege the "military industrial complex" argument of Ron Paul. We can cut defense spending 20% and maintain global dominance. Armed forces already have plans in the works to function on half the current budget because they recognize our fiscal mess as the #1 threat to national security, not a bunch of nuts hanging out with goats in caves. If we had paid each family of a 9/11 victim $30 million and turned the other cheek (with a more watchful and defensive posture for the future) we would be far ahead economically versus blowing a trillion bucks in the Middle East. Can't tell me we couldn't have used covert ops and drones to kill bad guys for 1/10th of the cost and still gotten th point across that we are not amused by their jihad.

Social Security, raise the age for anyone under 60. Add one month for every year younger than 60, maxed at three years for 24 and under. Then make employees pay the entire nut so government can't hide half the cost on the corporate ledger.

Immigration. Work visas for anyone with a pulse. 10 year clean record and you can be fast tracked for citizenship. No automatic citizenship for anchor babies. If you are here illegally and giving birth, your kid is not an American. If you want to be American, welcome. If you just want to work and eventually go home, that is great too but we will tax the crap out of you to make citizens more economically competitive.

Drugs are a health issue not a criminal issue. Legalizing drugs cuts our incarceration rate in half, reduces pressure on law enforcement, undermines a lot of criminal elements and raises tax revenue by bringing black market into the open. Same goes for online poker. Regulate and tax, don't forbid.

End rant.

Problem with most of this is that it's a bit on the reasonable side, and that is not a popular position.

 

[BGIF]

Abortion and gay marriage are non-issues. If you vote on this, stay home. They can take a four year sebatical as we have much more important issues to tackle and is the status quo really that unbearable or any side of these issues? More of these issues are between the involved parties and God, not government.

Well, this election must be a Fluke then.

Haven't you heard Ryan doesn't have the nomination, yet he's single handedly revoked women's rights.

 

[RDU Irish]

Sorry, should have stated IMO before the statement. I fail to see most moderates and independents in play putting a lot of stock in these issues. More likely, they assess the obsession level of the candidate and see neither side is serious about addressing these issues beyond pandering to their base.

I cannot fathom how any logical person can prioritze either of these two issues at the top of their process for picking President in this cycle with all the other more serious issues to consider. That goes for extremists on both sides of the abortion or gay rights debate.

 

[Cackalacky]

As someone voting for Romney let me provide some constructive criticism of Republicans:

Obsession on lowering tax brackets is dumb. The difference between 35% and 40% for someone making $400,000 per year is significant but hardly crippling. More crippling is the byzantine tax code and fear of the IRS. Also a flat 10% estate tax on anything over $500,000. All estates benefit from a step up in cost basis at death and this is more functional than tracking cost basis on Aunt Tilly's GE stock she bought in the 1950s and dividend reinvested since. It is also a managable percentage that would not cripple a closely held business versus a 55% tax bill on an illiquid asset.

Permanently lowered corporate taxes is the way to propel our economy. If we had both the best political environment and lowest tax rates for companies they would do more work here. 15% top end corporate rate and 5% repatriation of profits, permanent. No deductions or loopholes for any corporations, don't need them at these rates. If you want to produce things and put people to work, take best care of the entity that does this.

I will never see this in my lifetime but the economic potential is enormous. Consumption tax replaces all other taxes coupled with a pre-bate to all citizens to cover taxes on a subsistence level of spending. Whether you make $1 or $1 million, you get a monthly pre-bate of say $500 (family of four gets $2000) to do as you wish (total cost of under $200 billion). This alleviates stress on welfare, unemployment, social security, etc. Built in welfare with the only qualification of being a citizen, thus squeezing out illegals competitively. Any dollar you make stays in your pocket so you have full motivation to work. This would offset $2500 of monthly spending per person if the tax was 20%. Now Americans are incentivized to save instead of spend.

At least acknowlege the "military industrial complex" argument of Ron Paul. We can cut defense spending 20% and maintain global dominance. Armed forces already have plans in the works to function on half the current budget because they recognize our fiscal mess as the #1 threat to national security, not a bunch of nuts hanging out with goats in caves. If we had paid each family of a 9/11 victim $30 million and turned the other cheek (with a more watchful and defensive posture for the future) we would be far ahead economically versus blowing a trillion bucks in the Middle East. Can't tell me we couldn't have used covert ops and drones to kill bad guys for 1/10th of the cost and still gotten th point across that we are not amused by their jihad.

Social Security, raise the age for anyone under 60. Add one month for every year younger than 60, maxed at three years for 24 and under. Then make employees pay the entire nut so government can't hide half the cost on the corporate ledger.

Immigration. Work visas for anyone with a pulse. 10 year clean record and you can be fast tracked for citizenship. No automatic citizenship for anchor babies. If you are here illegally and giving birth, your kid is not an American. If you want to be American, welcome. If you just want to work and eventually go home, that is great too but we will tax the crap out of you to make citizens more economically competitive.

Drugs are a health issue not a criminal issue. Legalizing drugs cuts our incarceration rate in half, reduces pressure on law enforcement, undermines a lot of criminal elements and raises tax revenue by bringing black market into the open. Same goes for online poker. Regulate and tax, don't forbid.

End rant.

I agree with most all of this. Great Post.

However, people born in the US are constitutionally stated as being american citizens (14th Ammendment would have to be repealed and replaced). Their immigrant parents on the other hand, I agree with you. Get them visas, and working, paying income taxes and having clean records.

The consumption tax I like, mostly, but I forsee problems with it as regards the federal budgeting process (ie forcasting net income for the government), nothing that can't be worked out though. I am all for simplifying the tax code. Plus many taxes we pay are user taxes such as the tax paid on gas at the pump (used to assist in paying for capital road and infrastructure projects). that would be a serious issue for state's and municipalities to eat.

 

[Cackalacky]

Has anyone else noticed that Obama's name in the poll results is in italics?

 

[BGIF]

Has anyone else noticed that Obama's name in the poll results is in italics?

Psst The Italics on your screen shows who you voted for.

 

[Cackalacky]

Psst The Italics on your screen shows who you voted for.

LOLOLOLO. I thought the pollster might be a bit biased....LOLOLOL

 

[phgreek]

Psst The Italics on your screen shows who you voted for.

...Now THATS funny

 

[connor_in]

Well so much for our "secret" ballott

 

[Cackalacky]

you guys.....

 

[ACamp1900]

Is Donald Duck going to be on the ballot again this time around???.... wait,,.... nevermind, I forgot, he's not ON the ballot, he just VOTES on it... like 40,000 times... all for Obama... in swing states.

 

[Cackalacky]

I sure am glad we have those voter fraud legislations out there in those swing states. Obama does not have ACORN this time around.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Is Donald Duck going to be on the ballot again this time around???.... wait,,.... nevermind, I forgot, he's not ON the ballot, he just VOTES on it... like 40,000 times... all for Obama... in swing states.

It's important Mr. Duck isn't disenfranchised by Voter ID laws.

Nice try, anti-Mallard bigot.

 

[Cackalacky]

It's important Mr. Duck isn't disenfranchised by Voter ID laws.

Nice try, anti-Mallard bigot.

The Truth About Fraud

The link should provide you with enough to go on. The Voter ID legislation is a smoke screen. If the public en mass turns out and votes, Obama will win easily, particularly after Mr. Romney choosing Mr. Ryan.

 

[phgreek]

It's important Mr. Duck isn't disenfranchised by Voter ID laws.

Nice try, anti-Mallard bigot.

Acamp, IH...come on now...

I'm in a telecon, and I keep laughing at inappropriate times reading this stuff...its awkward. Please, for me, be less funny.

 

[phgreek]

The Truth About Fraud

The link should provide you with enough to go on. The Voter ID legislation is a smoke screen. If the public en mass turns out and votes, Obama will win easily, particularly after Mr. Romney choosing Mr. Ryan.

...well thats not funny.

 

[Cackalacky]

...well thats not funny.

bummer I know....well for some people.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The Truth About Fraud

...The Voter ID legislation is a smoke screen...

I agree. Forcing ducks to get ID is just a smokescreen to stop them from voting altogether. I mean, how are they going to present ID, and give their name, if they don't have hands and can't speak English?

Next, they'll require that all voters wear pants, when they know for a fact Mr. Duck doesn't wear them.

 

[Cackalacky]

I agree. Forcing ducks to get ID is just a smokescreen to stop them from voting altogether. I mean, how are they going to present ID, and give their name, if they don't have hands and can't speak English?

Next, they'll require that all voters wear pants, when they know for a fact Mr. Duck doesn't wear them.

Your familiar with voter registration cards right?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Really the worst president of your lifetime? Why?

Is it because he is such a big spender?

Obama is actually the smallest spender since Eisenhower. You see the the first year's budget is set by the previous President. So as much as the GOP would like to blame Obama for the huge deficit, spending actually fell under Obama in 2010 and is expected to fall 2013 as well. The only years spending has gone up under his watch was in 2011 when it went up 4.3% and this year when it will go up by a projected 0.7%. No president since Dwight has been as frugal Those numbers come from the CBO by the way. The biggest contributors to the deficit have been the Bush tax cuts, two wars and TARP which were all put into the books before Obama was even elected.

Honestly it's an insult to your own intelligence to claim something like this.

This misguiding statistics is only possible because of Bush's 08-09 budget, which was horrible. Obama has had three horrible years after that. Going from horrible to horrible doesn't make you "smallest spender since Eisenhower." The fact that Democrats attempt to claim this just shows how little they think of the brain power of Americans.

This would be like an NFL coach inheriting a 3-13 team and you claiming he's Vince Lombardi because he goes 4-12 for three straight years. "See! See! I haven't made things much worse!"

We were promised "change." We were promised this, when it came to spending: "...when I'm President, we will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Then there's this promise:

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2uLTBVkdrjY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

WHERE THE F*CK DID THAT GUY GO?! I sorta like that idea-generating Obama.

Is it because he is weak on immigration?

Obama has deported over 1 million Illegals, that is more than Bush in his first term. Ground forces on the borders saw an all time high under Obama. In fact the numbers of illegals trying to enter has dropped significantly because of the increase in "boots on the ground".

Maybe it is the Dream Act that makes him soft? You mean a bill that would require children brought over illegally, to live here continuously since they arrive and earn either a associates degree or serve in the military just to qualify for citizenship is not hard enough?

The number of people entering this country dropped because the economy was terrrrrible, don't kid yourself.

Immigration is unfortunately a nonissue because both the Dream Act and Romney's ideas are bad.

Is it because the economy has not improved?

Well it has unfortunately for Obama haters. Consumer spending has increased, unemployment has been reduced from 10% to 8.2% and will likely be below 8 by the election. Granted, not as quickly as many would like, but this is despite a congress that refuses to do anything and a drought that rivals the dust bowl. The president does not make legislation, he can only sign it into law.

The American economy is the greatest economic force in the history of man. It's really hard to absolutely kill. But if you think this economy has gotten better, you're living in fantasy land.

8.2%......for 43+ straight months. And that's not counting the people who have dropped out of the workforce, which puts unemployment (last I checked) at north of 14%. You've got to be shamefully out of touch to claim things are actually getting better.

People need to realize that GDP growth needs to be at ~3.5% just to keep up with population growth. We are heading in the wrong direction as business owners across the country see what the Oval Office Amateur is really made of.

Is it because of his giant Obamacare bill?

You mean that socialized medicine that is provided by the private sector? There are currently 24 million Americans receiving medical insurance right now because of "Obamacare" and the bill doesn't really take effect until 2014. Is it because of the mandate? You mean the mandate that was put in by republicans to ensure the private sector will receive as much profits as possible from the plan? Is it the giant price tag that the CBO projects will actually reduce the deficit? Is it the provisions that ensure you can not be denied or dropped coverage because of per-existing conditions?

So because private providers exist, it can't be a bad thing?

Here's the thing on CBO reports....they aren't oracles. They simply calculate a the situation that Congress/the White House tells them to do. "Well if X and Y happen...what will this cost?" There's no guarantee that X and Y happen; case in point is the Iraq War's estimate. The CBO doesn't make inaccurate calculations, because they aren't predicting the future, they don't create the variables their bosses conjure them up.

You don't know much about the federal government do you? Much like Congress has been robbing Social Security annually to plug the deficit (hence why not even Gingrich/Clinton balanced the budget), Obama has moved $700bil from medicare and counted it twice. Smooth move for those who aren't paying attention.

We could have had a much, much better system than this. We could have used policies that created competition--you know, the mechanism that has a proven track record of reducing costs through every medium and has increased the lives of everyone on the planet. We could have had states make plans that work for them, instead of this one-size-fits-all bullshit.

But we were promises "change." Where did the open meetings on C-SPAN go? We didn't get that openness. We got Nancy Pelosi's "pass it so you can see what's in it," and the White House saying "it's not a tax," only to get in front of the Supreme Court and say "it's a tax! it's a tax!" only to then turn around after it's (mindboggling) passage and say "it's not a tax." President Obama has been a genuine piece of sh*t for all of the fast ones he pulled getting this framework passed.

Is it because he will take away your guns?

National gun regulation is less under Obama than Bush. So much so that the largest gun control group The Brady Campaign has given Obama an F grade.

So again, hy is he the worst president ever? I don't care who you vote for but at least provide some reasoning for making such a bold statement for a president who's record shows him to be one of the most centrist leaders we have had in generations. Despite the desire by the opposition to label him a socialist Muslim Kenyan.

Also who did you think would win this poll on a board that is largely made up by conservative Christians?

You think Obama is a centrist?!?!?!?!?!? lololololololol

I don't care about the guns, and please don't assume that I'm a "conservative Christian," I am neither of those. And I don't think he's a Muslim Kenyan. I just realize that his policies suck.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I received my first neg rep from this thread: "stop watching fox news."

How eloquent. When you can't discuss, accuse them of watching Fox News (which I don't, and I despise Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh....got any more stereotypes you'd like to get out of the way, 95NDalumNM?).

 

[irishfanjho15]

President Obama, it is kinda hard to fix something in 4 years that took 8 years to mess up!

Don't you find it tiring blaming Bush for everything? The guy hasn't been in the White House in almost 4 years. When will Obama start taking some responsibilty? The last budget that Obama proposed was voted down by every single member of the senate. Don't try to blame the Republicans for Obama's failures. Democrats had control of congress for the first 2 years of Obama's presidency. What did they accomplish? The economy still sucks, and unemployment is inching higher and higher.

I still blame Bob Davie, Tyrone Willingham, and Charlie Weis. So blaming W. should be easier to defend.

 

[95NDAlumNM]

Oh probrecito. Did I hurt your feelings. Do you need to leave school and go back to momma?

 

[Buster Bluth]

 

[Redbar]

Your profanity laced descriptions of the POTUS demonstrate a lack of respect for the office and illustrate an enmity that goes deeper than "informed opposition."

 

[enrico514]

What's funny is that many posts seem to say... my guy is not as bad as the other guy. Take your party hats off and realize they're both awful choices owned by (often the same) special interest groups.