Where is the US economy headed?

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Nonsense. There's lots of evidence that very high tax rates lower economic growth rates while lower rates promote higher economic growth.

George, I have pointed out that the principle of the Laffer Curve is actually incorporated in almost every facet of the entire income tax code in this country. Every "tax incentive" has an implied purpose, which is to alter behavior, by giving tax breaks or lower tax rates to people that buy certain things for different purposes, work harder at certain things, or make certain amounts of money. Actually, for anyone to argue that something like the Laffer Curve is not credible, that tax incentives don't work, it would be akin to calling almost every congressman an idiot for the past hundred years. After all, what congressman has never engaged in promoting some kind of tax break or tax rate reduction for some kind of economic behavior? Surely there could not be many if any. So cyclops argument is so nonsensical as to be silly, in my opinion. Nobody with any knowledge of economics and human nature would argue against the reality that tax laws do alter economic behavior.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I think part of what we are seeing here is the result of nearly 40 years of stagnant wages for the overwhelming majority of AMericans; the dumbing down of America; the exportation of American jobs and the death of manufacturing; the loosening of government regulation which was sought after and engineered by the very segment in charge of all of the above.

It is only now that the pigeons are coming home to roost.

If I were to tell you what my greatest personal failing is, I would say that I continue to work on lost causes, that I think that determination can turn a situation around. For far too many years, against the evidence that they were not getting ahead, people were taking on second jobs ( often miserably paying service sector jobs), thinking that it was just them. After all, the standard of living was rising: there were computers in every home (or, so we thought); everyone seemed to have new cars; the price of domicile was skyrocketing. The American Dream was a meme that was pushed down our throats.

Well, it was not just a few who were sinking but 80% of the working population.

And John Boerner doesn't want the bush tax cut rolled back. I wish he would stand up straight and pick up his pants. Just because he is the bitch of the oligarchs, doesn't mean we have to live in poverty.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It is true about the reporters. One of my coworkers at the liquor store was an editor at a local paper. He also works at a bookstore and teaches skiing in the winter. There are so many educated and experienced people taking multiple posts in hope of keeping body and soul together.

0 Replies

You cannot escape these truths!

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%[OBAMA 2001-2010]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Year.......FEDERAL RECEIPTS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980......$0.517 trillion [CARTER]
1988….…$0.909 trillion [REAGAN]
1992.......$1.091 trillion [BUSH41]
2000......$2.025 trillion [CLINTON]
2008......$2.521 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$2,931[OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year.......FEDERAL OUTLAYS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980.......$0.591 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$1.064 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$1,.382 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$1.789 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$2,931 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$3,399 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………FEDERAL DEFICITS
1980.......$0.074 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$0.155 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$0.291 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......SURPLUS $0.236 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$0.410 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$0.160 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………GROSS FEDERAL DEBT
1980.......$0.909 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$2.601 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$4.002 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$5.629 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$9.654 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$10.954 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, How dumb are you? Statistics without their underlying causes have absolutely no value. Economics is not static like statistics; results are the consequences of all the variables inherent in what moves all economies.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

I think part of what we are seeing here is the result of nearly 40 years of stagnant wages for the overwhelming majority of AMericans; the dumbing down of America; the exportation of American jobs and the death of manufacturing; the loosening of government regulation which was sought after and engineered by the very segment in charge of all of the above.

It is only now that the pigeons are coming home to roost.

Manufacturing has been driven offshore by Democratic policies, which includes one of the highest income taxes in the world on businesses, also more regulations than almost anywhere in the world, plus the unions have been allowed to run businesses and certain industries virtually into the ground by demanding and obtaining wage and benefit packages that simply cannot be very competitive in the world markets, plain and simple. Put simply, the Democrats and the unions have almost killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

And unfortunately, it is liberals and Democrats like yourself that are unable to see the obvious truth of it staring you in the face, and you instead continue to blame the problem on somebody else, people that did not cause the problem. Unless and until the actual problems are accurately identified, you will never have a ghost of a chance of solving them. The only way this is going to be solved is to once again elect responsible conservatives with common sense understanding of this, and they also need to be people with fortitude and conviction of principle enough to turn the ship around and go in another direction. In as simple a language as possible, this will once again involve believing in the American people as individuals versus that of government to fix this. Government needs to get out of the way, by reducing regulations and taxes as much as is practically possible, in order that the wheels of industry can once again begin to hum again.

4 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

George, I have pointed out that the principle of the Laffer Curve is actually incorporated in almost every facet of the entire income tax code in this country. Every "tax incentive" has an implied purpose, which is to alter behavior, by giving tax breaks or lower tax rates to people that buy certain things for different purposes, work harder at certain things, or make certain amounts of money.

Hey dummy, the laffer curve is supposed to show revenues vs overall tax rates. That has NOTHING to do with tax incentives which are not a relationship between revenue and overall tax rates. Tax incentives are merely a reduction of taxes for a specific action.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, Why do you keep repeating false information? Is that a skill you learn in conservative school?

FYI (and this is fact): The US corporate income tax rate is 35%, but almost all corporations do not pay that rate. I believe I read someplace that the actual taxes paid by US corporations falls into 11th place of all industrialized countries. I think the actual average is around 24%. You can Google that if you wish. I'm assigning you some homework, because it doesn't matter whether we post facts here.

You must learn to remove that iron vice from your brain if you ever wish to return to the real world.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Manufacturing has been driven offshore by Democratic policies, which includes one of the highest income taxes in the world on businesses, also more regulations than almost anywhere in the world, plus the unions have been allowed to run businesses and certain industries virtually into the ground by demanding and obtaining wage and benefit packages that simply cannot be very competitive in the world markets, plain and simple. Put simply, the Democrats and the unions have almost killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

So you are arguing that the US has lower taxes and more regulation than Europe okie? I guess we can't expect you to actually look at facts with they way you lie to us okie.

2 Replies

@parados,

Here is a graph that shows the U.S. as having close to the highest corporate income tax rates in the world. So, regardless of personal income taxes, if corporations cannot even compete here, that doesn't build a very good foundation for business hopes here in this country. Also, one must look at the combination of all taxes, not only corporate, but personal income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, all of it, then add volumes of regulations, and it becomes no mystery as to why almost everything in Walmart is made somewhere else.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, Memorize this: "income tax rates does not apply consistently to every taxpayer whether individual or corporation."

It was found through the IRS that the majority of corporations do not pay any income tax in any one year.

This is from MSN Money:

Quote:

Most companies paid no taxes during the boom

With corporate tax receipts at 20-year low, the GAO takes a look through the books and finds 94% of all U.S. companies paid less than 5% -- and 61% paid nothing at all.

By MSN Money staff and news services

Think about this as you sign that check to Uncle Sam next week: More than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the General Accounting Office reports.

In 2000 alone, 94% of all U.S. corporations paid less than 5% of their total income in corporate taxes, the GAO said in a report released Friday. Among the largest corporations -- the 1% of all corporations that owns 93% of all corporate assets -- 82% paid less than 5% of their income in taxes.

You're not stupid, you're an idiot.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Manufacturing has been driven offshore by Democratic policies, which includes one of the highest income taxes in the world on businesses

Which is nonsense. Those people up at the top are making salaries that range from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions per year. At the other end of the scale, are the workers making so little money that couples often have not two but three or four jobs between them.

Even your goofy partner in crime posted a piece from the Wall Street Journal that mentions that many of those same leaches/rapists/criminals who run businesses pay no taxes because of loopholes.

Stop lying. Real wages have been stagnate for the bottom four quintiles of America for more than 30 years.

Regulations? Ha! Does your wife wear nail polish? Does she dye her hair? Do your grandkids play with squishy plastic toys? Well, those things all contain phthalates, a carcinogen banned by the European Union but allowed in American goods.

You claim to be a moral man but you scream and throw a tantrum over regulations. No moral man would do that.

You are nothing but a selfish bully.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

And unfortunately, it is liberals and Democrats like yourself that are unable to see the obvious truth of it staring you in the face, and you instead continue to blame the problem on somebody else, people that did not cause the problem.

Hey, I boycott all that crap made in China. I work two and three jobs to make a living. I don't lie and I live in the real world, not hide from it like you do.

0 Replies

@parados,

People have been laughing at the laffer curve for years. When is it going away?

1 Reply

@okie,

You really shouldn't rely on wiki without checking the sources okie.

The chart does NOT show the mean income tax rates for countries. When you look at the source for the graph it isn't the mean at all. It is the TOP rate per country.

Quote:

Also, one must look at the combination of all taxes, not only corporate, but personal income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, all of it, then add volumes of regulations, and it becomes no mystery as to why almost everything in Walmart is made somewhere else.

There you show your belief system that ignores facts okie. So, are you claiming that the total tax burden in the US is greater than most of the countries on your chart? Or are you just wishing it is so in order to appear to know more than you do?

0 Replies

Written by my former neighbor and published in the Huffington Post:

The early Administration leaks about Elizabeth Warren serving as an "interim" appointee to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were equivocal. In one version of the story, she would be a counselor to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. In others, this appointment would be an alternative to her even being considered for the job on a permanent basis -- a wink and a nod to the financial industry.

But that scenario turned out to be wrong, and underestimated Warren's own tenacity. It is now clear that the indefatigable Warren will be both a senior presidential adviser with direct access to Obama when she needs it, as well as a Treasury employee. In an administration dominated by Rubinistas, Warren will literally be the first financial progressive with both a personal connection to the president as well as an independent power base.

This strategy is a win-win, on several grounds. It gives Warren full authority to set up the agency, without having to run the gantlet of confirmation hearings and a likely Republican filibuster.

This way, Warren will be able to get the agency quickly up and running in a manner that serves both consumers and progressive politics. Early directives to bring greater simplicity and transparency to credit documents will be extremely popular. Politically, the carping by the banking industry and its Republican allies will remind the public which side the GOP is on.

This will take a lot of the wind out of the Republican claim that they opposed the bailout and share popular backlash against Wall Street. It will belatedly put the administration vividly on the side of regular Americans when it comes to banking issues.

And as Warren continues to be the remarkably popular champion of struggling families, it will become more difficult to deny her the job on a permanent basis if she wants it. And it will be more costly, even for a more Republican senate in the next Congress, to make her their nemesis.

Those like Sen. Chris Dodd who claimed Warren had little experience running things underestimated the lady. They certainly underestimated her as an astute political player. This appointment was delayed for several weeks because extensive discussions were necessary to produce terms that worked for both the White House and for Warren personally.

Credit for this victory is should be shared several ways. The progressive movement did not relent on this one. Denying Warren the job would have been a demoralizing slap at a Democratic activist base that was already in a state of near-despair.

It is hard to recall another case when a public pressure campaign for a particular nomination, with the tacit support of the would-be nominee, did not backfire. This success signals progressives to keep prodding Obama to be the leader we hoped we were electing.

Shahien Nasiripour in Huffington Post also gets credit for being the first one to suggest this interim tactic, back in July.

Credit also goes to President Obama himself. Despite nay-saying from the wing of his administration that is too cozy with Wall Street, the president is a good enough politician and has enough progressive instincts to recognize the Warren appointment as shrewd politics and smart on the merits.

But the most credit goes to Warren herself, for never pulling her punches either as head of the Congressional Oversight Panel or as a broader spokeswoman for financial reform. In an age of few progressive heroes, it took amazing combination of persistence, principle, political shrewdness and personal grace to make herself the indispensable woman.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His new book is "A Presidency in Peril."

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

Is Elizabeth Warren another liberal radical? If Dodd is not even a supporter, that says much about her in my opinion.

My opinion is, I don't need some supposed Obama radical as a watchdog to look out for me as a consumer, I will look out for myself. I don't need another fox in the henhouse to come up with more subversive regulations and liberal stupidity masquerading as some great thing to protect us.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

People have been laughing at the laffer curve for years. When is it going away?

Go ahead laugh. Try 100% tax rates and see what happens, pom. Do you have any predictions? After all, that would seem like an easy policy to fix the national debt, wouldn't it?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, Where was your brain trained? 100% tax rate? That's beyond stupid.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Is Elizabeth Warren another liberal radical?

First of all, shame on you for not knowing who she is. She is the most talked about woman in a positive way in America.

Secondly, you are an extreme conservative radical. You do need someone to balance you out! You are so far right that you count for three individuals.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know