Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look

Are these the booming times you are referring to?
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
sing the stock market as an unofficial benchmark, a recession would have begun in March 2000 when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the Dot-com bubble. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was relatively unscathed by the NASDAQ's crash until the September 11, 2001 attacks, after which the DJIA suffered its worst one-day point loss and biggest one-week losses in history up to that point. The market rebounded, only to crash once more in the final two quarters of 2002. In the final three quarters of 2003, the market finally rebounded permanently, agreeing with the unemployment statistics that a recession defined in this way would have lasted from 2001 through 2003.

And how was the economy from 2003-2008?

This report is also available as a PDF file.


Determination of the December 2007 Peak in Economic Activity

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call on Friday, November 28. The committee maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates (months and quarters) of U.S. recessions. The committee determined that a peak in economic activity occurred in the U.S. economy in December 2007. The peak marks the end of the expansion that began in November 2001 and the beginning of a recession. The expansion lasted 73 months; the previous expansion of the 1990s lasted 120 months.

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators. A recession begins when the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends when the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion.

Because a recession is a broad contraction of the economy, not confined to one sector, the committee emphasizes economy-wide measures of economic activity. The committee believes that domestic production and employment are the primary conceptual measures of economic activity.

The committee views the payroll employment measure, which is based on a large survey of employers, as the most reliable comprehensive estimate of employment. This series reached a peak in December 2007 and has declined every month since then.
Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research
Econbrowser: The 2001 recession revisited
With revised data, when did the last recession begin?

In a recent post, Greg Mankiw cites Hamilton and Chauvet in support of his view that a good argument could be made that the recession of 2001 actually began in 2000. Mankiw writes:

"Back in 2004, Michael Mandel of Businessweek gave me grief for saying that the 2001 recession began in late 2000, rather than at the official NBER date of March 2001. My view (and the view of the nonpartisan CEA staff) was that the data were substantially revised after the NBER committee made their call, and the March 2001 date no longer seemed right in light of the revised data."

As some readers may recall, the 2004 Economic Report of the President contained this box, which states:

"The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) uses a variety of economic data to determine the dates of business-cycle peaks and troughs. This task is made more difficult because many of these data series are subject to revision. For example, on November 26, 2001, the NBER announced that a recession had begun in March 2001. Since then, the four data series that the NBER used to determine the timing of the recession have been revised. The revisions to these series suggest that the recent recession began earlier than March 2001.

The four series cited by the NBER in their decision about the recent business-cycle peak were revised as follows:

* Real personal income less transfers:When the NBER dated the recession, this series showed a generally steady rise throughout 2000 and early 2001. Subsequent revisions reveal that income peaked in October 2000.
* Nonfarm payroll employment: The data at the time of the recession announcement showed employment growing at a substantial pace in early 2001, with 287,000 jobs added from December 2000 to its peak in March 2001. Revised data show that employment grew less than one-third of this amount in early 2001 and peaked in February 2001.
* Industrial production:The original data used by the NBER showed that this series peaked in September 2000. Revised data show that this peak came even earlier, in June 2000.
* Manufacturing and trade sales: Original data showed a peak in August 2000; the most recent data show a peak in June 2000.

Thus, the revised data show that the latest peak among the four series was February 2001, with some series peaking considerably earlier. Moreover, another data series, which the NBER has recently announced it will incorporate into its business-cycle dating process, also shows a peak before March 2001: monthly GDP reached a high point in February 2001, according to the most recently available estimates computed by a private economic consulting firm.

While some arbitrariness in determining the date on which a recession began is inevitable, revisions since the NBER made its decision for the most recent recession strongly suggest that the business-cycle peak was before March 2001. The median date of the peak for the five series discussed here is October 2000. Other data support the notion that economic activity had slowed sharply or even begun to decline by this point, including the stock market, business investment, and initial unemployment claims. For these reasons, the analyses throughout this chapter (including the charts that compare this recession to past recessions) use the fourth quarter of 2000 as the peak of economic activity and the start of the recession.
US Recession 2000 Can tell us a lot about today's Economy :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website
he NAPM Index showed that manufacturing was contracting. Moreover, manufacturers accelerated the liquidation of inventories in April 2000, bringing the Inventories Index down from 44.2 per cent in March to 39.6 per cent in May 2001. In late 2001 another NAPM report showed that economic activity in the manufacturing sector had fallen for the 15th consecutive month in October. Leaving no room for Keynesian Pollyanna's to find a chink of light, it also revealed that the overall economy had ground to a halt. But what is of the strictest importance about both NAPM manufacturing findings is that they narrowed the beginning of the recession down to about the middle of 2000 . Well guess who was the then president?

Now the index registered employment as negative from January 2001. The meaning of this was brought home when it was reported that 223,000 jobs were lost in May 2001, the biggest drop in ten years, raising the US April unemployment rate to 4.5 per cent. This was on top of a loss of 53,000 jobs in April. (Note the rate at which the jobless increased. As an aside, also note how the ever-so honourable leftist media blamed Bush for the job losses). Meanwhile, average hourly earnings rose 0.4 percent in April after a 0.4 percent increase in the previous month. There was nothing unusual here. The classical economists also observed that there was a tendency for wages to continue rising in the final phase of a boom.

Eventually the recession struck at the rest of the economy, including services, but to a lesser degree. In early May the NAPM revealed that its non-manufacturing index had dropped three points in April to 47.1. This was the lowest monthly reading in the survey's four-year history, making it a 14 point fall since December 2000. What is particularly interesting is that the NAPM survey's indicated a general contraction. Yet consumer spending actually accelerated during the recession. How could this be and why didn't the GDP go negative throughout the recession. According to Tim Kane and Rea Hederman of the Cato Institute


The NBER’s Recession Dating Procedure
The National Bureau's Business Cycle Dating Committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle. The chronology identifies the dates of peaks and troughs that frame economic recession or expansion. The period from a peak to a trough is a recession and the period from a trough to a peak is an expansion. According to the chronology, the most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a record-long expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough occurred in November 2001, inaugurating an expansion.

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades.

On November 26, 2001, the committee determined that the peak of economic activity had occurred in March of that year. For a discussion of the committee's reasoning and the underlying evidence, see The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001. The March 2001 peak marked the end of the expansion that began in March 1991, an expansion that lasted exactly 10 years and was the longest in the NBER's chronology. On July 16, 2003, the committee determined that a trough in economic activity occurred in November 2001. The committee's announcement of the trough is at Index of /cycles/july2003. The trough marks the end of the recession that began in March 2001. The 2001 recession thus lasted eight months, which is somewhat less than the average duration of recessions since World War II. The postwar average, excluding the 2001 recession, is eleven months.

In choosing the dates of business-cycle turning points, the committee follows standard procedures to assure continuity in the chronology. Because a recession influences the economy broadly and is not confined to one sector, the committee emphasizes economy-wide measures of economic activity. The committee views real GDP as the single best measure of aggregate economic activity. In determining whether a recession has occurred and in identifying the approximate dates of the peak and the trough, the committee therefore places considerable weight on the estimates of real GDP issued by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The traditional role of the committee is to maintain a monthly chronology, however, and the BEA's real GDP estimates are only available quarterly. For this reason, the committee refers to a variety of monthly indicators to determine the months of peaks and troughs.

The committee places particular emphasis on two monthly measures of activity across the entire economy: (1) personal income less transfer payments, in real terms and (2) employment. In addition, the committee refers to two indicators with coverage primarily of manufacturing and goods: (3) industrial production and (4) the volume of sales of the manufacturing and wholesale-retail sectors adjusted for price changes. The committee also looks at monthly estimates of real GDP such as those prepared by Macroeconomic Advisers (see http://www.macroadvisers.com). Although these indicators are the most important measures considered by the NBER in developing its business cycle chronology, there is no fixed rule about which other measures contribute information to the process.

Figure 1 shows the recent movements of quarterly real GDP superimposed on the average movement around troughs over the previous six recessions. GDP reached a peak in the fourth quarter of 2000. This was followed by contraction during the first three quarters of 2001 and growth since then. According to revised data released in September 2003 (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdp203p.htm), real GDP increased at an annual rate of 3.3 percent in the second quarter of 2003, and 1.4 percent in the first quarter.

Figure 2 shows the movements in real personal income less transfers. Real personal income fell in early 2001. It reached its low point in October 2001 and then generally rose throughout 2003, reached its highest level in July 2003. It fell slightly in August, the most recent reported month. A comparison of Figures 1 and 2 shows that personal income has grown less rapidly than real GDP. The reasons for this are discussed in the frequently asked question on this topic below.
Cesar Conda on John Kerry, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush & Recession on NRO Financial

A key issue this election season — one which some observers believe will determine the outcome of the presidential election — is whether the recession began in the last quarter of 2000 or during the first months of the Bush presidency. Granted, even if the truth is that the recession began in the days after George W. Bush's inauguration, most reasonable people would conclude that a president cannot on a dime turn a $10 trillion economy one way or the other. However, data and supporting analyses from economists indicate that the recession began well before Bush took office, making political criticism of the president on the jobs issue even more inappropriate.

According the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the unofficial arbiter of business cycles, the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001. NBER analyzes four data series from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve Board, and other government sources. While previously NBER indicated the recession started in March 2001 (it has not formally revised that date), official revisions of the data indicate that the recession started earlier than that.

For example, under revised calculations, real disposable income peaked in October 2000, rather than steadily rising in 2000 and early 2001 as indicated in the original data. Industrial production/manufacturing and trade sales both peaked in June of 2000, instead of September and August, respectively. Non-farm payroll employment peaked in February 2001, not March 2001. And monthly gross domestic product, which the NBER recently announced will be included in dating recessions, also peaked in 2000.


There is a lot more out there in reference to the early 2000 recession.
 
The same way Bush made up 8 years of deficits.


OOOooohhhh.... I've got it! He's going to pass it on to the NEXT Administration! Fuck that "I'm will balance the budget by the end of my first term." right? We all know it was just rhetoric anyway....

So how's that CHANGE workin' out for you?

Balancing the budget during a recession would be idiotic. Especially one as bad as this one

Guess he should have thought of that before he said it, huh?
 
And how was the economy from 2003-2008?

This report is also available as a PDF file.


Determination of the December 2007 Peak in Economic Activity

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call on Friday, November 28. The committee maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates (months and quarters) of U.S. recessions. The committee determined that a peak in economic activity occurred in the U.S. economy in December 2007. The peak marks the end of the expansion that began in November 2001 and the beginning of a recession. The expansion lasted 73 months; the previous expansion of the 1990s lasted 120 months.

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators. A recession begins when the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends when the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion.

Because a recession is a broad contraction of the economy, not confined to one sector, the committee emphasizes economy-wide measures of economic activity. The committee believes that domestic production and employment are the primary conceptual measures of economic activity.

The committee views the payroll employment measure, which is based on a large survey of employers, as the most reliable comprehensive estimate of employment. This series reached a peak in December 2007 and has declined every month since then.
Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research
Econbrowser: The 2001 recession revisited
With revised data, when did the last recession begin?

In a recent post, Greg Mankiw cites Hamilton and Chauvet in support of his view that a good argument could be made that the recession of 2001 actually began in 2000. Mankiw writes:

"Back in 2004, Michael Mandel of Businessweek gave me grief for saying that the 2001 recession began in late 2000, rather than at the official NBER date of March 2001. My view (and the view of the nonpartisan CEA staff) was that the data were substantially revised after the NBER committee made their call, and the March 2001 date no longer seemed right in light of the revised data."

As some readers may recall, the 2004 Economic Report of the President contained this box, which states:

"The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) uses a variety of economic data to determine the dates of business-cycle peaks and troughs. This task is made more difficult because many of these data series are subject to revision. For example, on November 26, 2001, the NBER announced that a recession had begun in March 2001. Since then, the four data series that the NBER used to determine the timing of the recession have been revised. The revisions to these series suggest that the recent recession began earlier than March 2001.

The four series cited by the NBER in their decision about the recent business-cycle peak were revised as follows:

* Real personal income less transfers:When the NBER dated the recession, this series showed a generally steady rise throughout 2000 and early 2001. Subsequent revisions reveal that income peaked in October 2000.
* Nonfarm payroll employment: The data at the time of the recession announcement showed employment growing at a substantial pace in early 2001, with 287,000 jobs added from December 2000 to its peak in March 2001. Revised data show that employment grew less than one-third of this amount in early 2001 and peaked in February 2001.
* Industrial production:The original data used by the NBER showed that this series peaked in September 2000. Revised data show that this peak came even earlier, in June 2000.
* Manufacturing and trade sales: Original data showed a peak in August 2000; the most recent data show a peak in June 2000.

Thus, the revised data show that the latest peak among the four series was February 2001, with some series peaking considerably earlier. Moreover, another data series, which the NBER has recently announced it will incorporate into its business-cycle dating process, also shows a peak before March 2001: monthly GDP reached a high point in February 2001, according to the most recently available estimates computed by a private economic consulting firm.

While some arbitrariness in determining the date on which a recession began is inevitable, revisions since the NBER made its decision for the most recent recession strongly suggest that the business-cycle peak was before March 2001. The median date of the peak for the five series discussed here is October 2000. Other data support the notion that economic activity had slowed sharply or even begun to decline by this point, including the stock market, business investment, and initial unemployment claims. For these reasons, the analyses throughout this chapter (including the charts that compare this recession to past recessions) use the fourth quarter of 2000 as the peak of economic activity and the start of the recession.
US Recession 2000 Can tell us a lot about today's Economy :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website
he NAPM Index showed that manufacturing was contracting. Moreover, manufacturers accelerated the liquidation of inventories in April 2000, bringing the Inventories Index down from 44.2 per cent in March to 39.6 per cent in May 2001. In late 2001 another NAPM report showed that economic activity in the manufacturing sector had fallen for the 15th consecutive month in October. Leaving no room for Keynesian Pollyanna's to find a chink of light, it also revealed that the overall economy had ground to a halt. But what is of the strictest importance about both NAPM manufacturing findings is that they narrowed the beginning of the recession down to about the middle of 2000 . Well guess who was the then president?

Now the index registered employment as negative from January 2001. The meaning of this was brought home when it was reported that 223,000 jobs were lost in May 2001, the biggest drop in ten years, raising the US April unemployment rate to 4.5 per cent. This was on top of a loss of 53,000 jobs in April. (Note the rate at which the jobless increased. As an aside, also note how the ever-so honourable leftist media blamed Bush for the job losses). Meanwhile, average hourly earnings rose 0.4 percent in April after a 0.4 percent increase in the previous month. There was nothing unusual here. The classical economists also observed that there was a tendency for wages to continue rising in the final phase of a boom.

Eventually the recession struck at the rest of the economy, including services, but to a lesser degree. In early May the NAPM revealed that its non-manufacturing index had dropped three points in April to 47.1. This was the lowest monthly reading in the survey's four-year history, making it a 14 point fall since December 2000. What is particularly interesting is that the NAPM survey's indicated a general contraction. Yet consumer spending actually accelerated during the recession. How could this be and why didn't the GDP go negative throughout the recession. According to Tim Kane and Rea Hederman of the Cato Institute


The NBER’s Recession Dating Procedure
The National Bureau's Business Cycle Dating Committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle. The chronology identifies the dates of peaks and troughs that frame economic recession or expansion. The period from a peak to a trough is a recession and the period from a trough to a peak is an expansion. According to the chronology, the most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a record-long expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough occurred in November 2001, inaugurating an expansion.

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades.

On November 26, 2001, the committee determined that the peak of economic activity had occurred in March of that year. For a discussion of the committee's reasoning and the underlying evidence, see The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001. The March 2001 peak marked the end of the expansion that began in March 1991, an expansion that lasted exactly 10 years and was the longest in the NBER's chronology. On July 16, 2003, the committee determined that a trough in economic activity occurred in November 2001. The committee's announcement of the trough is at Index of /cycles/july2003. The trough marks the end of the recession that began in March 2001. The 2001 recession thus lasted eight months, which is somewhat less than the average duration of recessions since World War II. The postwar average, excluding the 2001 recession, is eleven months.

In choosing the dates of business-cycle turning points, the committee follows standard procedures to assure continuity in the chronology. Because a recession influences the economy broadly and is not confined to one sector, the committee emphasizes economy-wide measures of economic activity. The committee views real GDP as the single best measure of aggregate economic activity. In determining whether a recession has occurred and in identifying the approximate dates of the peak and the trough, the committee therefore places considerable weight on the estimates of real GDP issued by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The traditional role of the committee is to maintain a monthly chronology, however, and the BEA's real GDP estimates are only available quarterly. For this reason, the committee refers to a variety of monthly indicators to determine the months of peaks and troughs.

The committee places particular emphasis on two monthly measures of activity across the entire economy: (1) personal income less transfer payments, in real terms and (2) employment. In addition, the committee refers to two indicators with coverage primarily of manufacturing and goods: (3) industrial production and (4) the volume of sales of the manufacturing and wholesale-retail sectors adjusted for price changes. The committee also looks at monthly estimates of real GDP such as those prepared by Macroeconomic Advisers (see http://www.macroadvisers.com). Although these indicators are the most important measures considered by the NBER in developing its business cycle chronology, there is no fixed rule about which other measures contribute information to the process.

Figure 1 shows the recent movements of quarterly real GDP superimposed on the average movement around troughs over the previous six recessions. GDP reached a peak in the fourth quarter of 2000. This was followed by contraction during the first three quarters of 2001 and growth since then. According to revised data released in September 2003 (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdp203p.htm), real GDP increased at an annual rate of 3.3 percent in the second quarter of 2003, and 1.4 percent in the first quarter.

Figure 2 shows the movements in real personal income less transfers. Real personal income fell in early 2001. It reached its low point in October 2001 and then generally rose throughout 2003, reached its highest level in July 2003. It fell slightly in August, the most recent reported month. A comparison of Figures 1 and 2 shows that personal income has grown less rapidly than real GDP. The reasons for this are discussed in the frequently asked question on this topic below.
Cesar Conda on John Kerry, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush & Recession on NRO Financial

A key issue this election season — one which some observers believe will determine the outcome of the presidential election — is whether the recession began in the last quarter of 2000 or during the first months of the Bush presidency. Granted, even if the truth is that the recession began in the days after George W. Bush's inauguration, most reasonable people would conclude that a president cannot on a dime turn a $10 trillion economy one way or the other. However, data and supporting analyses from economists indicate that the recession began well before Bush took office, making political criticism of the president on the jobs issue even more inappropriate.

According the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the unofficial arbiter of business cycles, the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001. NBER analyzes four data series from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve Board, and other government sources. While previously NBER indicated the recession started in March 2001 (it has not formally revised that date), official revisions of the data indicate that the recession started earlier than that.

For example, under revised calculations, real disposable income peaked in October 2000, rather than steadily rising in 2000 and early 2001 as indicated in the original data. Industrial production/manufacturing and trade sales both peaked in June of 2000, instead of September and August, respectively. Non-farm payroll employment peaked in February 2001, not March 2001. And monthly gross domestic product, which the NBER recently announced will be included in dating recessions, also peaked in 2000.


There is a lot more out there in reference to the early 2000 recession.


So what, exactly, is your point here again? When the original question was "And how was the economy from 2003-2008?"
 
Last edited:
Prove that it wouldn't, honeybear.

You are the one that made the claim, the burden of proof rests upon you. Or you can continue to flit about the board making yourself look ignorant, your choice, sweetcheeks.

Way to miss the point.
You mean this point that I have been challenging you on?
Without the bailout things would be a LOT worse.
I absolutely got your point, I asked you to prove it, instead you just keep dodging.

Artful Dodger
 
You are the one that made the claim, the burden of proof rests upon you. Or you can continue to flit about the board making yourself look ignorant, your choice, sweetcheeks.

Way to miss the point.
You mean this point that I have been challenging you on?
Without the bailout things would be a LOT worse.
I absolutely got your point, I asked you to prove it, instead you just keep dodging.

Artful Dodger

I'm rather partial to
DEFLECTION ALERT!
 
A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.



There will be no jobs and higher taxes, but you will get health care!

Actually, that's a bunch of hogwash. I get so tired of the rants from conservatives that if you tax people, there will be no job and the wealthy won't invest money if they get taxed a little more than everyone else.

People who want to make money will invest money regardless of the tax structure. Granted, they may not have quite as much to invest, but for the most part, they'll do fine, and so will the economy. Yes, the wealthy do spur economic growth, but it is the middle class that keeps the economy moving. If a society loses its middle class, then that society is doomed. There may be a few wealthy, but those numbers will shrink, and the rest of society will become very poor.

While we are currently seeing huge deficit spending, most of it is due to the bailouts. If we do increas taxes as a way to change our healthcare system, it will only be a transfer from the private sector to the public sector. The net loss/gain will basically be zero. The question remains to be seen, if it even happens, as to whether it will be an improvement or not. At this point, it seems like anything would be better than our current system, but I'm sure it could be made even worse.

So what is eating away at the budget? It is the entitlement programs that everyone benefits from. If we reduce spending on those programs, then everyone will be affected. That probably would be a good thing.

What bothers me is that those who complain so much about taxes never address the issue of how we should pay for the things government provides that are actually necessary. As for spending on social programs, that amount hasn't changed much over the years as a part of GDP. It didn't under Bush, and it isn't likely to under Obama, except for healthcare, which I already addressed.

If it's really about fairness, then why not tax everyone at the same rate, across the board? Give a lump sum exemption, and then have a flat tax. It will still be progressive, and it would make much more sense, and we'd hear a lot less bitching about marginal rates that have little to do with how much everyone actually pays in the end.
 
A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.



There will be no jobs and higher taxes, but you will get health care!

Actually, that's a bunch of hogwash. I get so tired of the rants from conservatives that if you tax people, there will be no job and the wealthy won't invest money if they get taxed a little more than everyone else.

People who want to make money will invest money regardless of the tax structure. Granted, they may not have quite as much to invest, but for the most part, they'll do fine, and so will the economy. Yes, the wealthy do spur economic growth, but it is the middle class that keeps the economy moving. If a society loses its middle class, then that society is doomed. There may be a few wealthy, but those numbers will shrink, and the rest of society will become very poor.

While we are currently seeing huge deficit spending, most of it is due to the bailouts. If we do increas taxes as a way to change our healthcare system, it will only be a transfer from the private sector to the public sector. The net loss/gain will basically be zero. The question remains to be seen, if it even happens, as to whether it will be an improvement or not. At this point, it seems like anything would be better than our current system, but I'm sure it could be made even worse.

So what is eating away at the budget? It is the entitlement programs that everyone benefits from. If we reduce spending on those programs, then everyone will be affected. That probably would be a good thing.

What bothers me is that those who complain so much about taxes never address the issue of how we should pay for the things government provides that are actually necessary. As for spending on social programs, that amount hasn't changed much over the years as a part of GDP. It didn't under Bush, and it isn't likely to under Obama, except for healthcare, which I already addressed.

If it's really about fairness, then why not tax everyone at the same rate, across the board? Give a lump sum exemption, and then have a flat tax. It will still be progressive, and it would make much more sense, and we'd hear a lot less bitching about marginal rates that have little to do with how much everyone actually pays in the end.

Except you're overlooking a small detail that I asked about earlier.

What we have here is some of the people contributing to the cost of government spending via income taxes while others do not, and who are beneficiaries of the cost of government spending. How do you go about taxing everyone at the same rate when some have been deemed to be exempt in the first place?
 
Audit writes:

Give a lump sum exemption, and then have a flat tax. It will still be progressive,

How would that be a "progressive" tax?

That is a flat tax.
 
Congress just found out that the even the Rich do not have enough to pay for all they want (surprise surprise).

So what to do,find another way to tax.
Income tax is regressive, exempt food and have no income tax on those that make less than Obowma's stated rich level of $250,000.00.
A sales tax on everything else is the only fair way.

If you buy a 5 years old car your tax is less,and if you buy a new Cadillac your tax is more.
Real poor do not get affected as you all think.
Because if you are poor you take the bus and do not own a car (get it).

A sales tax will reflect the true value of your country and is the only way to control your government. Will also let the rest of the nation realize we are not as rich as you all think.
 
Last edited:
We need to raise taxes on the rich from 36% to 40% and eliminate their loopholes. Then we need to stop wasting so much money on foreign military adventures.
 
We need to raise taxes on the rich from 36% to 40% and eliminate their loopholes. Then we need to stop wasting so much money on foreign military adventures.

Nope raising taxes on the rich alone will not pay for these types of deficits. Taxes are going to needed to be raised on everyone. Of course I think we should just stop spending so much fucking money. Then our government wouldn't have to raise taxes until its people's nose bleed.
 
We need to raise taxes on the rich from 36% to 40% and eliminate their loopholes. Then we need to stop wasting so much money on foreign military adventures.

You can't have what the rich already made and in a recession they also make less.
You can only tax them on what they make now and in the future,unless you want them to sell there assets and give the poor the money that they get from the sales.
Wait then that would be considered a sales tax. Thats it make the rich sell there cars, home and yachts and give the money to the poor.
Then have them sell there businesses and also give the money to the poor.
Uh isin't that what congress and Obowma are doing now.
Well if not they sure are gettin a good head start.
 
We need to raise taxes on the rich from 36% to 40% and eliminate their loopholes. Then we need to stop wasting so much money on foreign military adventures.


You really didn't buy into Barack Obama's campaign promise that 5% of this nation was going to give the rest of us--or 95% of us a tax break & still be able to pay for all this additional spending--did you?

We're all going to be paying much higher taxes & so will you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top