The People Are Taxed To Much!

[Skull Pilot]

The Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts increased revenue, because they were within the limits set by the Laffer curve. Once you get beyond those limits, as George W Bush's tax cuts did, you face declining revenues.

Even though Laffer is now recanting on his previous work, his original theory, which clearly stated that taxes above or below a certain level in relation to GDP caused losses in revenue.

Repubicans always seem to forget the "or below" part of the equation.

And democrats/ progressives always forget the "above" part of the equation.

I'm well aware of the "above" part of the equation, we passed that quite a while ago. We're now well into "below".

So tell me how much of gdp shpuld government consume?

We're already at state and federal government spending of nearly 50% of GDP.

Is it your position that it needs to be higher?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not really.

We cut everything but defense. Defense is the only mandated spending in the Constitution.

If we cut everything, everyone shares in the pain. Isn't that what the left keeps saying? Where is the shared sacrifice?

Defense spending is not mandated in the Constitution. It is authorized. Using the constitution to justify excessive unnecessary spending on the military is idiocy.

Only opinon calls it unecessary.
It very well may be....but that is still your opinion.
Just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah well I'm not going to start putting JMHO into every sentence.

 

[editec]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Taxes on the wealthy have been declining (from 90% during Ikes administration) down to the current top rate of (is it now?) 35%?

How come we're not all better off?

Here's a clue, maybe taxation isn't the ONLY problem, eh?

 

[DiamondDave]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Taxes on the wealthy have been declining (from 90% during Ikes administration) down to the current top rate of (is it now?) 35%?

How come we're not all better off?

Here's a clue, maybe taxation isn't the ONLY problem, eh?

disingenuous.... try and understand deductions and what was considered income at that time...

But hey... all sounds good to the likes of you when it comes to punishing others who earn or do more... all fits right in with your leftist ideology of selective equality or selective equal treatment by the government

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Taxes on the wealthy have been declining (from 90% during Ikes administration) down to the current top rate of (is it now?) 35%?

How come we're not all better off?

Here's a clue, maybe taxation isn't the ONLY problem, eh?

No one said taxation was the only problem.

Spending is the biggest problem.

 

[Oldandtired]

Defense spending is not mandated in the Constitution. It is authorized. Using the constitution to justify excessive unnecessary spending on the military is idiocy.

Only opinon calls it unecessary.
It very well may be....but that is still your opinion.
Just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah well I'm not going to start putting JMHO into every sentence.

wouldnt expect you too. Just happens to be that in this case, it would have been approrpiate seeing as you made a statement that you then supported with opinion, and then finished with an attack...again, based on opinion

But I will not lecture you on basic debate etiquette. You obviously do not give a crap aboput debate. You just want to be right.

So please...continue showing us how right you are.

 

[Oldandtired]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Taxes on the wealthy have been declining (from 90% during Ikes administration) down to the current top rate of (is it now?) 35%?

How come we're not all better off?

Here's a clue, maybe taxation isn't the ONLY problem, eh?

disingenuous.... try and understand deductions and what was considered income at that time...

But hey... all sounds good to the likes of you when it comes to punishing others who earn or do more... all fits right in with your leftist ideology of selective equality or selective equal treatment by the government

You mean the left wing media forgot to remind all how interest on primnary residence is the only loan interest youy can now write off? They forgot to mention that cars and dinners and such are no longer 100% wroite offs? They did not deem it necessary to point out that all travelk and entertainment is no longer 100% a write off?

You mean the Left wing media simply pointed out the change in tax rate but never thought to explain how the change is not nearly as dramatic as it seems?

I wonder why that is?

Cant be that they have an agenda...I guess they simply assumed everyone already knew this.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I'm an independent, and I think we should have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan years ago, as well as most nations around the globe. I can't keep up with the new neocommunists thinking, or the neocon agenda with this war mentality. You folks are on your own, and more than likely none of you ever served this great nation. I think our troops should have been home yesterday.

I had also really hoped that the neocommunists would have supported fixing Bush, instead of maintaining or exceeding his failures on every level.

A simple question:

What's changed, except the worsening condition of America and her people due to extremely poor government management?

Scott Brown is the only positive I've seen in the last year. I expect more positives throughout our nation as the years progress, he can not fix this government without the nation's help. That help means getting independent fiscal conservatives in office with the courage to make the harsh decisions needed today for a better future tomorrow. The current crew of Dems time has already passed, and many GOP need to find the exit door as well. The bias, and corruption by big government is nearing an end, thank God.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Should government get out of the way, the economic engine of capitalism will ramp up to a sustainable level.

Bullshit. Everytime the markets get freer (less regulated), we get into the very economic mess we are in now. Free markets cannot exist in democracy, as the proletariat will not put up with the repression and gouging by the corporatists. You guys keep saying this about free markets, but can never point to a time in the existence of this planet where this is true or proven.

 

[Oldandtired]

I'm an independent, and I think we should have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan years ago, as well as most nations around the globe. I can't keep up with the new neocommunists thinking, or the neocon agenda with this war mentality. You folks are on your own, and more than likely none of you ever served this great nation. I think our troops should have been home yesterday.

I had also really hoped that the neocommunists would have supported fixing Bush, instead of maintaining or exceeding his failures on every level.

A simple question:

What's changed, except the worsening condition of America and her people due to extremely poor government management?

Scott Brown is the only positive I've seen in the last year. I expect more positives throughout our nation as the years progress, he can not fix this government without the nation's help. That help means getting independent fiscal conservatives in office with the courage to make the harsh decisions needed today for a better future tomorrow. The current crew of Dems time has already passed, and many GOP need to find the exit door as well. The bias, and corruption by big government is nearing an end, thank God.

What has changed?

There is a greater divide between the people of our country thanks to the leadership of both parties.

Reps hate dems
Libs hate cons
Poor hate rich

It used to be certain people hated the POTUS and his policies. Now I find this POTUS casting so much blame on the opposition...not just the party, but the people as well such as the tea party people, that those that agree with the POTUS are hating the opposition.

May be wrong...but that is my take.

 

[Vast LWC]

Only opinon calls it unecessary.
It very well may be....but that is still your opinion.
Just wanted to clarify that.

The same could be said of any spending.

 

[Vast LWC]

disingenuous.... try and understand deductions and what was considered income at that time...

But hey... all sounds good to the likes of you when it comes to punishing others who earn or do more... all fits right in with your leftist ideology of selective equality or selective equal treatment by the government

Perhaps his answer is a bit on the simplistic side, but your response is just as disingenuous...

...or is it your position that income taxes have not been cut dramatically over the last 40 years in the top tax brackets?

Because that would be utterly false.

 

[Vast LWC]

Should government get out of the way, the economic engine of capitalism will ramp up to a sustainable level.

Bullshit. Everytime the markets get freer (less regulated), we get into the very economic mess we are in now. Free markets cannot exist in democracy, as the proletariat will not put up with the repression and gouging by the corporatists. You guys keep saying this about free markets, but can never point to a time in the existence of this planet where this is true or proven.

Though I'm not fond of the term "Proletariat", I would point this out:

The government "got out of the way" in the 1920's. For most of the decade, they reduced Capital Gains taxes to 12.5% and had next to no regulation on trading markets.

The results were as follows:

1. Many people decided to invest in the market that otherwise wouldn't, causing a bubble.

2. Many people and companies saw the success of the market and over-leveraged themselves to buy into it, causing a larger bubble.

3. Derivative trading became popular, causing values of some items to become wildly exaggerated, causing an even larger bubble.

4. When the bubble thus created burst, it caused the market collapse of 1929. Huge amounts of capital, that never really existed, disappeared overnight.

Does this sound familiar? It should, because it's EXACTLY what happened in the last few years.

After the market crash, Herbert Hoover did basically NOTHING to help the crashed economy. In other words, he "Got out of the way", as you suggest we should do now.

What followed was 2 1/2 years of unending downward spiraling leading to the Great Depression.

By the time Roosevelt finally took over, in 1932, he was forced to take radical steps to combat the terrible conditions left by Hoover. Many people believe his methods were too far to the left, and they are probably right, but the country was in desperate straights.

Now, revisionist historians on the right, like Ann Coulter, would have you believe the Depression was Roosevelt's fault. But Hoover's "getting out of the way" of capitalism was the cause, which is something that they refuse to admit.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

The population of the US was 3 million people in the 1920s, not the 300 plus million today. I'm exaggerating, but you can NOT compare this complex economy or the state of our nation today to the 1920s. I have had quite enough of those far reaching analogies thank you........

cut government, cut spending, get the people's government back in their hands, and shut up while it happens.

 

[DiamondDave]

disingenuous.... try and understand deductions and what was considered income at that time...

But hey... all sounds good to the likes of you when it comes to punishing others who earn or do more... all fits right in with your leftist ideology of selective equality or selective equal treatment by the government

Perhaps his answer is a bit on the simplistic side, but your response is just as disingenuous...

...or is it your position that income taxes have not been cut dramatically over the last 40 years in the top tax brackets?

Because that would be utterly false.

But the amount of tax revenue from the higher incomes has not dropped.. and is still disproportional to the other income brackets....

Tax every dollar, earned by every citizen, exactly the same with no loopholes in a simplified system.... else it is unequal treatment under the government

 

[Vast LWC]

The population of the US was 3 million people in the 1920s, not the 300 plus million today. I'm exaggerating, but you can NOT compare this complex economy or the state of our nation today to the 1920s. I have had quite enough of those far reaching analogies thank you........

cut government, cut spending, get the people's government back in their hands, and shut up while it happens.

Yes, of course.

One should naturally not pay attention to history when said history interferes with your ideology.

We should all ignore the glaring parallels, "shut up" and let you repeat the exact same mistakes we made in the past.

Unbelievable.

 

[Vast LWC]

But the amount of tax revenue from the higher incomes has not dropped.. and is still disproportional to the other income brackets....

Tax every dollar, earned by every citizen, exactly the same with no loopholes in a simplified system.... else it is unequal treatment under the government

The amount of tax revenues from the higher income brackets has not dropped because the lower brackets have been shouldering more of the burden (in the form of payroll taxes, sales tax, etc), causing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.

The wealth gap has in fact increased by 50% since the 1960's.

Wealth gap widens
Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
August 29 2006: 1:29 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Over the past 40 years, those at the top of the money food chain have seen their wealth grow at a rate far outpacing everyone else, according to a new analysis released by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group.

In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.

The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.

"In 21st century America, wealth begets wealth, and those without wealth find it farther out of reach," the report's authors write.

The EPI analysis also found that stock ownership is not widely spread across wealth groups.

In 2004, 48.6 percent of households owned some stock, including equity mutual funds in 401(k) accounts. But only 35 percent of stock-owning households had more than $5,000 in stock. The average value of stock holdings was just $7,500 among the middle 20 percent of households and just $1,400 for the bottom 40 percent. By contrast, the wealthiest 1 percent of households owned an average of $3.3 million.

Wealth gap has widened more than 50% during past 40 years - Aug. 29, 2006

If the rich get more of the wealth they pay a larger share of the taxes.

And of course, revenue from higher brackets did in fact decrease dramatically once the derivative correction happened and the stock market shed all of the fake capital.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm an independent, and I think we should have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan years ago, as well as most nations around the globe. I can't keep up with the new neocommunists thinking, or the neocon agenda with this war mentality. You folks are on your own, and more than likely none of you ever served this great nation. I think our troops should have been home yesterday.

I had also really hoped that the neocommunists would have supported fixing Bush, instead of maintaining or exceeding his failures on every level.

A simple question:

What's changed, except the worsening condition of America and her people due to extremely poor government management?

Scott Brown is the only positive I've seen in the last year. I expect more positives throughout our nation as the years progress, he can not fix this government without the nation's help. That help means getting independent fiscal conservatives in office with the courage to make the harsh decisions needed today for a better future tomorrow. The current crew of Dems time has already passed, and many GOP need to find the exit door as well. The bias, and corruption by big government is nearing an end, thank God.

You sound like a Libertarian, which is a far right-wing ideology.

And if you assume that the leftie types on this board are not veterans, you would be mistaken, navy boy.

 

[DiamondDave]

But the amount of tax revenue from the higher incomes has not dropped.. and is still disproportional to the other income brackets....

Tax every dollar, earned by every citizen, exactly the same with no loopholes in a simplified system.... else it is unequal treatment under the government

The amount of tax revenues from the higher income brackets has not dropped because the lower brackets have been shouldering more of the burden (in the form of payroll taxes, sales tax, etc), causing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.

The wealth gap has in fact increased by 50% since the 1960's.

Wealth gap widens
Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
August 29 2006: 1:29 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Over the past 40 years, those at the top of the money food chain have seen their wealth grow at a rate far outpacing everyone else, according to a new analysis released by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group.

In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.

The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.

"In 21st century America, wealth begets wealth, and those without wealth find it farther out of reach," the report's authors write.

The EPI analysis also found that stock ownership is not widely spread across wealth groups.

In 2004, 48.6 percent of households owned some stock, including equity mutual funds in 401(k) accounts. But only 35 percent of stock-owning households had more than $5,000 in stock. The average value of stock holdings was just $7,500 among the middle 20 percent of households and just $1,400 for the bottom 40 percent. By contrast, the wealthiest 1 percent of households owned an average of $3.3 million.

Wealth gap has widened*more than 50% during past 40 years - Aug. 29, 2006

If the rich get more of the wealth they pay a larger share of the taxes.

And of course, revenue from higher brackets did in fact decrease dramatically once the derivative correction happened and the stock market shed all of the fake capital.

What you earn as compensation for your work, efforts, ideas, investments, etc is irrelevant... they are not "getting their wealth" from the government...

If I advance my career to 200K, that does not entitle you to a share of my income, nor does it mean I deserve unequal treatment in the % of taxation as a punishment for success..

Again... wingers such as yourself and the selective equality you crave, when it benefits you

 

[Darkwind]

That usually is the rub, isn't it?

Not really.

We cut everything but defense. Defense is the only mandated spending in the Constitution.

If we cut everything, everyone shares in the pain. Isn't that what the left keeps saying? Where is the shared sacrifice?

Defense spending is not mandated in the Constitution. It is authorized. Using the constitution to justify excessive unnecessary spending on the military is idiocy.

Wow. Are you serious? The Federal Governments number one priority from the very first day of our republic is to protect this nation from outside aggression. It is very much mandatory that we provide a defense of this nation. No where else in the Constitution is there such a requirement. Taking from the largess of the people to spend upon the unfortunate certainly is not.