kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 22, 2011 15:09:43 GMT -5
Thanks for that link. It's always been strange to me to hear the whole 'the top 1% pay 35% of all taxes and the bottom 50% pay none!!' argument as if that is something that should make me think that our tax system unfairly burdens the rich. How do you not hear stats like that and think boy we sure have a lot of poor people and the rich are VERY rich. It's the state and local taxes and really balance it out. The lowest 20% makes 3.7% of total income but pay 12.3% of state/local taxes. The top 1% makes 20.3%, but only pays 7.9%. So why should we raise federal taxes?
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Apr 22, 2011 16:24:51 GMT -5
It's the state and local taxes and really balance it out. The lowest 20% makes 3.7% of total income but pay 12.3% of state/local taxes. The top 1% makes 20.3%, but only pays 7.9%. So why should we raise federal taxes? Where did I say we should?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 22, 2011 16:58:11 GMT -5
So why should we raise federal taxes? Where did I say we should? Not saying that you said that, but there's not shortage of people on here, or in the WH, that want to.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 25, 2011 14:11:04 GMT -5
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Apr 25, 2011 14:34:06 GMT -5
The CBO report is a great resource, since they really covered a lot of options. It also reminded me that there hasn't been a Superfund tax since 1995, which never made sense to me...
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 1, 2011 8:29:00 GMT -5
Today's W. Post has a good summary of the last 10 years of US Economic Policy and how we got into today's situation. Recommended reading. Running in the red: How the U.S., on the road to surplus, detoured to massive debtExcerpt The nation’s unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.
Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. “In the end, the floodgates opened,” said former senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax-cut bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001.
Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.
The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 1, 2011 12:40:37 GMT -5
Poor Obama, he had almost nothing to do with the debt - according to the Post - even when he had two years with a Democratic-controlled Congress. And even when he just signed an extension of the Bush tax cuts. Guess his vote in the Senate not to raise the debt limit stands as his main contribution to debt reduction.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 1, 2011 13:01:37 GMT -5
I think the Post was making an empirical point, not a political one. On raw empirics, their position is uncontroversial. That some suggest it is does not inspire much confidence in their ability to grow the economy or even to avoid repeating the disasters that they oversaw up to 2008.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 1, 2011 18:32:00 GMT -5
The Post article was not making an empirical point but a political statement: blame Bush. This is clear since they virtually ignored what I brought up and ignored the fact that the budget Obama submitted in January did absolutey the opposite of what needs to be done. It's alright to place some blame on Bush but to insinuate that Obama had virtually nothing to do with our debt problem, well, that's making a political statement, not an empirical point. Also, how are the Republicans repeating the disasters they oversaw up to 2008 when Paul Ryan is the only adult in the debt discussion so far and the Democrats continue the starving our seniors and poor tactics? And, if you think Ryan's proposal includes reducing taxes, you haven't read his proposal.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 4, 2011 10:39:29 GMT -5
Back in the world where we all hate each other ( ;D ), Rob Portman has released the Senate Republicans' jobs plan. Nothing in here that would come as much of a surprise to anyone, and it dovetails with Paul Ryan where it can, but it's out there. Not sure yet what, if any, action is planned on this. portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=6e0dad20-777a-4811-a0a3-edaccbbedb89Apparently, Democrats are supposed to unveil a plan of their own today. I won't expect too many surprises there either. But who on the Dems side is naming these things for them?? The "Make It In America" Plan? Either they are watching FAR too much HBO, or someone was watching this:
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 4, 2011 12:34:05 GMT -5
Back in the world where we all hate each other ( ;D ), Rob Portman has released the Senate Republicans' jobs plan. Nothing in here that would come as much of a surprise to anyone, and it dovetails with Paul Ryan where it can, but it's out there. Not sure yet what, if any, action is planned on this. portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=6e0dad20-777a-4811-a0a3-edaccbbedb89Apparently, Democrats are supposed to unveil a plan of their own today. I won't expect too many surprises there either. But who on the Dems side is naming these things for them?? The "Make It In America" Plan? Either they are watching FAR too much HBO, or someone was watching this: I haven't seen any of the budgets you refer to, but I don't believe plans released this way will ever be realistic -- from either side. The next "realistic" attempt will -- hopefully -- come from the Gang of Six. The rest is simply posturing, a la Paul Ryan.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 4, 2011 13:44:50 GMT -5
Well, they're not really fully developed plans as such, more proposals, so you got me there. But I imagine the Gang of Six will be considering both the Republican proposal and what the Democrats release, so even if you are accurate, I think its still somewhat significant. So there. Nyah. Nyah. Nyah.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 15, 2011 8:49:04 GMT -5
Stanley Druckenmiller (George Soros' former right hand man) on the debt ceiling, the markets and entitlement reform: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576317612323790964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop"Here are your two options: piece of paper number one—let's just call it a 10-year Treasury. So I own this piece of paper. I get an income stream obviously over 10 years . . . and one of my interest payments is going to be delayed, I don't know, six days, eight days, 15 days, but I know I'm going to get it. There's not a doubt in my mind that it's not going to pay, but it's going to be delayed. But in exchange for that, let's suppose I know I'm going to get massive cuts in entitlements and the government is going to get their house in order so my payments seven, eight, nine, 10 years out are much more assured," he says.
Then there's "piece of paper number two," he says, under a scenario in which the debt limit is quickly raised to avoid any possible disruption in payments. "I don't have to wait six, eight, or 10 days for one of my many payments over 10 years. I get it on time. But we're going to continue to pile up trillions of dollars of debt and I may have a Greek situation on my hands in six or seven years. Now as an owner, which piece of paper do I want to own? To me it's a no-brainer. It's piece of paper number one."
Mr. Druckenmiller says that markets know the difference between a default in which a country will not repay its debts and a technical default, in which investors may have to wait a short period for a particular interest payment. Under the second scenario, he doubts that investors such as the Chinese government would sell their Treasury debt and take losses on the way out—"because I'll guarantee you people like me will buy it immediately."
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 20, 2011 10:09:00 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on May 20, 2011 11:25:23 GMT -5
Except that from what I've read no one ever expected anything out of the Gang of Six and Biden's negotiations is the one that everyone expects will produce some sort of compromise.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 20, 2011 11:27:15 GMT -5
The words "Biden" and any variant of "expectation" combined in one sentence sends a cold, deathly chill up my spine.
Sort of an opposite Chris Matthews effect.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 1, 2011 9:21:52 GMT -5
I wonder what would happen if Congress simply decided, "We give up. We're just not really going to do anything, ever again"?
I'm not certain, but it sure feels like I'm going to find out before too much longer.
|
|