love this

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sorry Zimmy, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I proved you wrong...



The facts may not support your Marxist narrative Zimmy, but them there is still the facts.

If I'm wrong, show me some different facts. I am rational and persuadable.

You are also very humble I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS. We need to reduce the borrowing first. I then followed with long term deficit reduction requires both tax increases and cuts. Just because you don't understand that, does not mean your statements are facts. I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. I am a big boy, you aren't going to make me feel sad or inferior with your name calling. Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995. Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. I think JohnR's thoughts on capital gains taxes are right on target. The most reasonable analysis of economics, in my opinion (I guess if they were your ideas, they would be facts), is that both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues. That is not an original idea of mine, but it makes sense based on mathematics. I will admit, you are right, just taxes can't do it. I have pointed that out each time I have posted. Maybe you missed that

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are also very humble I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. . Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995.

which one?

1981 = 69.25
1984= 50
1987= 38.5
1988= 29.75
1990= 32.45
1991= 34
1992= 35.8
1993= 36.9
1999= 39.6
2002= 38.6
2011= 35

and which set of tax rules do you want to apply to your new rate?

in 1999 the top 1% paid 36.18% and the top 10% paid 66.45% of all Federal personal income taxes
in 2009 the top 1% paid 36.73% and the top 10% paid 70.47% of all Federal personal income taxes ... source IRS

in a little state teetering on the edge of doom with a left of democrat governor and a democrat treasurer we cannot take even modest steps to address the spending because the people who actually run the state will not stand for it


RI unions say pension problem overstated
By David Klepper
Associated Press / October 27, 2011 PROVIDENCE, R.I.—Rhode Island labor unions that are fighting a proposed public pension overhaul accused state Treasurer Gina Raimondo on Thursday of overstating the problem to justify extreme changes.

Their remarks came during a third day of legislative hearings on a proposal by Raimondo and Gov. Lincoln Chafee and a day after hundreds of supporters and opponents of the legislation filled the Statehouse to weigh in on the bill.

Paul Valletta of the State Association of Firefighters said Raimondo "cooked the books" with actuarial assumptions and conservative market projections that exaggerate the pension system's problems. He accused her of supporting "draconian" changes to the retirement system to raise her political profile.

"She created this problem and now she's riding in on a white horse," Valletta said.

Raimondo, a Democrat, insists that rising pension costs could cripple governments and force tax hikes or budget cuts. The state's unfunded pension liability stands at $7 billion, and the state's pension costs are set to double next year to over $600 million. The state retirement system covers 66,000 public teachers, state and municipal workers, police, firefighters and judges.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are also very humble I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS. We need to reduce the borrowing first. I then followed with long term deficit reduction requires both tax increases and cuts. Just because you don't understand that, does not mean your statements are facts. I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. I am a big boy, you aren't going to make me feel sad or inferior with your name calling. Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995. Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. I think JohnR's thoughts on capital gains taxes are right on target. The most reasonable analysis of economics, in my opinion (I guess if they were your ideas, they would be facts), is that both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues. That is not an original idea of mine, but it makes sense based on mathematics. I will admit, you are right, just taxes can't do it. I have pointed that out each time I have posted. Maybe you missed that

Zimmy, in an earlier post, you said tax hikes would put a "big dent", or something like that, in the annual deficit. The annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. From what I recall,liberals say tax hikes on the rich MIGHT get us $90 billion. $90 billion is less than 1/15th of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo.

Zimmy, can you answer a direct question? If social security and medicare need at least $50 trillion in the next 30 years, and you oppose conservative proposals to scale back the benefits, WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION? Leave that problem for our kids and grandkids?

"Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995."

Really? Can you back that up please? Just because Sean Penn says it, doesn't make it fact.

"Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. "

The subprime mortgage crisis wrecked the economy. In my opinion, no one party caused that. Lots of blame to go around.

"both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues."

I have asked you more than once to post some numbers that support the notion that tax hikes can have a meaningful impact. I keep asking, and you keep dodging.

We need more tax DOLLARS. If the economy grows, and tax rates stay the same, the feds get more tax dollars. That is the best solution. You cannot even prove that raising tax rates will result in more tax dollars collected...the Bush tax cuts proved that tax rates and tax dollars collected do not always move in the same direction.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, in an earlier post, you said tax hikes would put a "big dent", or something like that, in the annual deficit. The annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. From what I recall,liberals say tax hikes on the rich MIGHT get us $90 billion. $90 billion is less than 1/15th of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo.

The deficit did hit 1.5 trillion in 2010 but is shrinking and projected to be about 1/2 as big in a few years. 90 Billion out of $750 B is quite a lot of money, especially when you add up the cumulative impact.

We need more tax DOLLARS. If the economy grows, and tax rates stay the same, the feds get more tax dollars. That is the best solution. You cannot even prove that raising tax rates will result in more tax dollars collected...the Bush tax cuts proved that tax rates and tax dollars collected do not always move in the same direction.

Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time.

To keep taxes low on the "hope" that the economy improves will quite possibly just saddle Americans with more debt. Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING.

If the Bush tax cuts proved anything it's that investment in jobs the past decade was more a function of demand than supply.

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

The deficit did hit 1.5 trillion in 2010 but is shrinking and projected to be about 1/2 as big in a few years. 90 Billion out of $750 B is quite a lot of money, especially when you add up the cumulative impact.


Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time.

To keep taxes low on the "hope" that the economy improves will quite possibly just saddle Americans with more debt. Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING.

If the Bush tax cuts proved anything it's that investment in jobs the past decade was more a function of demand than supply.

-spence

To increase taxes without substantial and realistic cuts in spending will stifle growth as uncertainty in the Economy / Future will prevent people from hiring. My boss is considering hiring someone but won't because of uncertainty in the local market. And he is more liberal than Spence

We have sort of a circle jerk:

1. Some people want to Raise Taxes - won't work
2. Some people want to drastically cut spending - which means jobs - which means increases in federal assistance with the simultaneous loss of revenue (Taxes of lost jobs).
3. Some people (The Beast from New Bedford) want to cut defense spending so the money can be reallocated to others (no sheet - he has said this) all without a realistic look at balancing the force. We will be both weaker AND will sacrifice lots of jobs (see circle jerk #2).

We need to find a way to balance cuts and increase revenue by GROWING JOBS. If we put people to solid, decent paying jobs we will generate revenue from taxes and save money spent in assistance, bailouts, and employment recover acts.

We need to find sources of the economy that generate many levels of income. If you give money to road crews go get a little trickle down foe employes, cop details, engineering, and asphalt manufacturing. If you build ships for the Navy (remembering that we are a maritime nation dependent on trade) you trickle money to shipworkers, tool & die manufactures, steel industry, IT, systems engineering, port facilities, and still trickle down to road crews, asphalt manufacturing, and the like. Not to mention you don't send our Navy to sea in old, under maintained ships because the maintenance funds were robbed for some other Congress Pet Project.

There are other worthy avenues money can be sent to which generate multiple levels of prosperity; Bio / Pharma, realistic green jobs, innovation areas where we still have barely an edge - though that is slipping)> Shipbuilding that was just one that I have a glancing familiarity with. Sending the money to build roads - while greatly needed - doesn't much stimulate economy, it is a fairly dead end, no pun intended, that limits the amount of people it helps. Apologize - working on 2 hrs sleep - going to bed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

[*]Some people want to drastically cut spending - which means jobs - .

The feds spent $500 million on Solyndra, which promptly went out of business. Not all spending is smart enough to create jobs. And that spending needs to be paid for at some point.

I don't "want" to cut spending. But I don't want to leave our kids with an bill for $50 or $60 trillion that they had no part of. And unfortunately, the math shows unequivocally that we will not solve this problem with tax hikes. Responding to a $50 trillion hole with tax hikes, seems to me, like making the beds on the Titanic while it's sinking. Maybe it makes some people feel good, but it doesn't address the problem.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The deficit did hit 1.5 trillion in 2010 but is shrinking and projected to be about 1/2 as big in a few years. 90 Billion out of $750 B is quite a lot of money, especially when you add up the cumulative impact.


Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time.

To keep taxes low on the "hope" that the economy improves will quite possibly just saddle Americans with more debt. Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING.

If the Bush tax cuts proved anything it's that investment in jobs the past decade was more a function of demand than supply.

-spence

Spence, let's say the annual deficit decreases to $750B in a few years. The total debt in a few years will be north of $20 trillion, and when you factorin Social Security and Medicare, we needt at least $50 trillion. Spence, PLEASE tell me how we raise a significant portion of that by raising tax rates.

"Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time. "

Spence, are you seriously saying that tax revenues collected would be maximized at tax rates of 100%? Really?

Earth to Spence...the largest tax revenues we ever collected were in the years immediately following the Bush tax cuts? Spence, how can that be? Answer...the growth in the economy more than offset the cut in rates. THAT'S how you do it. Grow the base, not reduce people's after-tax take home pay.

"Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING."

It's also increased freedom, because the spending is voluntary. I'm all for increased consumer spending, if that's what people freely choose to do. I don't want my taxes increased to give paybacks to businesses like Solyndra that are politically well-connected. I thought the OWS morons were opposed to that type of crony-capitalism, but for some reason, it's OK when liberals payoff their supporters.

You are more inane than usual, Spence. Raising rax rates will not always increase revenue, just like raising prices doesn't always generate more revenue for a business. At some point, you cost yourself out of the market. Page 1 of every economics text says that when you increase the cost of something (including wealth), the demand for that something will decrease. We need to find the sweet spot...raising rates isn't always a goo dthing, just like raising prices isn't always a good thing. At least not here on Earth, where I live.