Where is the US economy headed?

@parados,

Quote:

SS has a surplus of 2.5 TRILLION

Go try to put your hands on this $2.5 trillion. It does not exist.

1 Reply

@parados,

I believe that one went over the cookoo's nest.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

From the NYT.

Quote:

The Caucus: Unswerving Barrage by Obama Knocks Romney Off Stride

Surrogates for President Obama hammered at Mitt Romney’s business record, and even some Republicans called for Mr. Romney to release more tax returns.

What is he hiding? That most of his earnings are being "offshored" to the Caymen Islands?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
SS has a surplus of 2.5 TRILLION

Go try to put your hands on this $2.5 trillion. It does not exist.

Actually, it exists in the 14 TRILLION deficit that income tax has.

1 Reply

@parados,

The conservatives continue to argue that taxing the rich will reduce the creation of jobs, but we've been waiting since GW Bush cut taxes for the rich to their lowest rate since 2002-2003. It's now a decade later, and job creation has been in the pits besides the Great Recession from 2007.

All while the national debt continues to increase.

Conservatives simply do not understand simple economics; if they had, they would see cutting taxes for the rich "does not create jobs," and at the same time "increases our national debt" which they continue to harp about. Then, they blame President Obama for the recession in jobs, while the conservatives cut government jobs by the thousands.

It's hopeless.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It's hopeless

Yes it is. The collapse of the current world order is now a sure thing, because we can neither agree on what reality is nor can we work together to come to a common understanding.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

So what do you consider "fair"?
Do you want the wealthy to pay 100% of all the income taxes paid?

To be honest, I dont care how much money someone makes or how much they pay in income tax.
I am not as worried as you seem to be about what everyone else makes.
"Fair" is when everyone pays the same % as everyone else.

Its only the left that seems to be so jealous about what others make.

And your assumption that I dont understand economics is wrong.
I just dont understand your definition of "fair".

And you seem to think that my source is biased, so will you be happy if I post the IRS numbers?
Are you going to say that using their numbers proves a bias?

I know that the wealthy can pay more without hurting themselves, but why should they?
As long as they are following the rules, and paying everything they legally owe, why should they pay more?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Why does it have to be "fair?" In 1971, it was 70% for the highest income earners. Why couldn't it be 80% for the highest income earners today?

One CEO earned $377 million last year. At the 80% tax rate, he'd still have $75.4 million net income. That's plenty for anybody who's a working stiff.

What does "fair" have do with tax rates? Many countries tax their workers at over 50% no matter what their income level.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Why does it have to be "fair"?
Because Obama is the person stressing the wealthy paying their "fair share".
So, since he is the one stressing it, then he should define "fair".

I dont care if you make the tax rate 90%, as long as its the same for everyone.
And lets force those people that dont pay income tax to pay their "fair share".

BTW, who are you to decide what is enough?
It seems to me that each person should decide for themselves what "enough" is, and you sure as hell dont have the right to decide for anyone except yourself.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Tax rates are not "fair" to all classes of income earners no matter how any one person may describe it. Why? Because the cost of living is not equal even within the same city, county, state and/or country.

That you fail to understand basic economic realities tell us all we need to know about where your head's at.

I never decided what is enough; that's up to our government to decide. My statement was a "what if" scenario; not actual input to our government.

You don't even understand how our income tax system works. Give it up! You're way above your head.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't know why you bother ci. unless it is for the opportunities offered to brag and to spout gratuitous insults.

IMO Romney has no chance barring some unforeseen catastrophe. I would sooner have bought a used car off Mr Nixon that I would off Mr Romney. He looks like a blackjack dealer who isn't used to daylight.

It's about greed and envy and has nothing to do with economics.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I don't know why you bother ci. unless it is for the opportunities offered to brag and to spout gratuitous insults.

Oh, you noticed that too? His patronising flows so freely, he probably doesn't even know he's doing it all the time. What a bore.

0 Replies

I'm not the self professed expert on everything that some of you are, but I do know that when a group of people is already paying most of the bill, it is almost criminal to demand that they pay more.

Why not go after the 30% of the population that pays no income tax at all?
Also, if you want to change the tax code so that dividends and capitol gains are taxed at the same rate as income, I have no problem with that, but for some of you to say that somehow its wrong to follow the law and pay only what you owe amazes me.

The wealthy pay the lions share of the income taxes, but many of you seem to think its not enough.
You say its "greedy" or "immoral" for people to want to keep what they earn, as long as they earn it legally why do you care.

I cant help but wonder if people like Michael Moore, Barney Frank, and the other liberal icons have voluntarily written checks to the govt for more than they owe.
It seems to me that all of you demanding the wealthy pay more should set the example by paying at least double what you owe, and then prove it by releasing a copy of that check for everyone to see.
Until you do that, you have no right to demand that others do that.

You are hypocrites if you dont lead by example.

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

Why not go after the 30% of the population that pays no income tax at all?

The 30% you speak of is so poor, they make almost no money whatsoever; and taking their taxes would gain us almost nothing while making them even poorer. That's not an effective strategy for solving the problem.

Quote:

The wealthy pay the lions share of the income taxes, but many of you seem to think its not enough.

They make 10 times the lion's share of the money, as well. The entire point is that the share of wealth owned by the top classes has increased quite a bit.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the upper classes pay half the taxes they used to. Literally the lowest levels of any of our lives. The idea that they are paying too much is unsupported by fact.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I'm not the self professed expert on everything that some of you are, but I do know that when a group of people is already paying most of the bill, it is almost criminal to demand that they pay more.

Based on what evidence do you claim to know that? Tax rates at the top of the income distribution were a multiple of what they are now between the 1930s and the 1970s. The economy grew just fine, and the rich still lived the high life. If Democratic tax plans are a crime now, where was the crime then?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The actual marginal tax rates (graph) is shown below since 1916.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/Income_Corp_CapitalGains_Rates-650x603.png

The marginal income tax rates were almost 95% in the 1940's, and leveled off to 90% in the 1950's. It was 70% in the 1970's. Since GW Bush's tax cuts, the marginal tax rate dropped from 35% to 15%. How in the world can our government operate on such a low marginal tax rate when our country was involved in two wars that lasted longer than WWII, and we spend more on defense than the top 10 country's put together?

From Wiki.

Quote:

SIPRI military expenditure database
The world's top 5 military spenders in 2010.
Figures sourced from the SIPRI military expenditure database.

Military spending as percentage of GDP
Rank Country Spending ($)[3] % of GDP Per capita ($)
— World Total 1,546,529,200,000 2.2%
1 United States 687,105,000,000 4.7% 2,141
2 People's Republic of China 114,300,000,000 2.2% 74
3 Russia 61,285,000,000 2.5% 428
4 France 57,424,000,000 2.7% 879
5 United Kingdom 55,586,000,000 2.7% 893
6 Japan 54,420,000,000 1.0% 401
7 Saudi Arabia 46,848,000,000 11.4% 1,558
8 India 44,917,000,000 2.5% 30
9 Germany 38,198,000,000 1.8% 593
10 Italy 34,816,000,000 1.8% 593

To say the rich are now paying "more" just doesn't compute when compared to our own country's historical tax rates or many other country's current tax rates.

1 Reply

According to this gubmint chart, debt and GDP met at the crossroads two years ago. Was that when congress had to vote to increase the debt "ceiling"?

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/US%20debt%20and%20GDP%20-%20log%20scale_0.PNG

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

The problem isn't that people follow the law MM. The problem is how the law has been manipulated so they don't have to pay as much as they used to.

Quote:

BUFFETT: Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.

mysteryman wrote:

I cant help but wonder if people like Michael Moore, Barney Frank, and the other liberal icons have voluntarily written checks to the govt for more than they owe.

That is BS mm. It basically states that you want others to be more patriotic than you are. It says you are greedy and want others to pay your share. All the time, you are patting yourself on the back for being so patriotic and selfless.

I DO pay more than I owe. I purposely didn't take a $70,000 deduction for any horse last year.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Thanks for that graph, CI. It makes the point nicely, doesn't it?

One more thing in addition to what you said: It's funny how mysteryman's talking point about the top earners paying the lion's share of income taxes singles out one specific tax. They are not paying the lion's share of the payroll tax, the rate of which is regressive. And since the income tax and the payroll tax raise comparable amounts of money, the overall tax system is much less progressive than mysteryman's focus on the income tax suggests. (And mysteryman isn't the only one. This soundbite is an warmed-up Republican chestnut from four years ago.)

0 Replies

This is not economics. It's accountancy.

And the figures are just assumed to be true once they appear on a graph to those who like to strut their superiority as interpreters of graphs. The sophistries can then be batted back and forth until the end of time with such things.

How about raising taxes on $50,000 plus and increasing spending on welfare programmes? The $250,000 plus mark is as fat a sitting duck as the foxhunters were. A fly paper for votes to stick to.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know