traineeinvestor
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Cut taxes, cut spending even more. I like mine better.
Why? It's so much easier just to keep printing the money - that way no body has to pay more taxes and nobody has their entitlements cut.
Cut taxes, cut spending even more. I like mine better.
Independent said:I didn't intend to say we can't balance the budget by simply cutting expenses. I said we can't balance it by cutting federal employee costs - they make up just a small percent of the total budget. If we want to balance by cutting expenses, we need to go where the money is - and that includes SS and Medicare. AFAIK, cutting SS by 33% means making the average SS check 33% smaller.
You seem to think that the rich are getting poorer and the poor are getting richer. I've never seen any data to support that notion. Do you have a source? Each year we use some of the tax dollars collected from higher income people to support current consumption of very low income people, but that's not what you wrote.
I should have clarified that I believe that tax increases aren't the answer in the near term - trying to climb out of a recession in a period of high unemployment. The current administration took a look at tax increases and realized that we would be in danger of slipping back into the mess we just left if taxes were increased now. So they rightfully extended the Bush tax cuts. So no it's not a private prejudice of mine - the last two administrations agree.
Why? It's so much easier just to keep printing the money - that way no body has to pay more taxes and nobody has their entitlements cut.
What's the rationale for small tax increases hurting the economy? I'm not an economist but it seems to me that if the money goes to the government they are going to spend it immediately resulting in a boost to the economy. On the other hand, if I pay less taxes, I'm just going to save and build my cash reserves or invest it in stocks. It's not clear to me how this would help the job situation or the economy as a whole.
photoguy said:What's the rationale for small tax increases hurting the economy? I'm not an economist but it seems to me that if the money goes to the government they are going to spend it immediately resulting in a boost to the economy. On the other hand, if I pay less taxes, I'm just going to save and build my cash reserves or invest it in stocks. It's not clear to me how this would help the job situation or the economy as a whole.
You've complained repeatedly being "attacked" whenever someone takes exception to something subjective you have posted; and that people aren't reading your posts completely before responding. Sorry, but you aren't and they have.
I'm not attacking you, I'm disagreeing with you.
You need to learn the difference.
I believe that people spending money would benefit the economy more than if gov't spent it.
But I don't believe many people will invest the tax savings. Many can't afford to, and besides - there's a lot of flat screens and iPads out there to buy.
I believe that people spending money would benefit the economy more than if gov't spent it.
And I'm like you - I put my tax refund in the bank. this will help the bottom line of the banks. It may be their best source of income given all the bad loans out there.
Same thing stocks - investment in stocks helps the economy.
investing in stocks right now only inflates the price of stocks, how does that help the economy? seems to me it just makes for a more risky environment by pushing the P/E back up, thus creating an environment just begging for another correction/collapse.
maybe, maybe not but that presupposes that the people will actually spend it, which from the following it appears you arent convinced they will.
Hamlet said:They aren't saying that it is impossible to cut expenses enough to balance the budget. They are saying it is impossible to do it in the way you described (which was backed up by your "gut feeling" that there was plenty of easy "waste" to trim).
You can balance the budget without raising taxes, but it involves some dramatic changes in what we expect to get from government. Our Defense budget would need to be slashed to what it would take to actually defend our country from attack, rather than the current "Undisputed Ruler of the World" budget we have now. We would need to reduce Social Security benefits. We would need to change Medicare/Medicaid so that they only pay for a much more basic set of health care benefits than they currently do. We would need to stop paying farm subsidies (Not a huge part of the budget, just my particular pet peeve).
Or we could do some of of the above and go back to the tax structure that we under Clinton. IMO, the best Republican president that we've had since Reagan
Contrary to the view that "business and upper income individuals are increasing shackled by gov't actions that are essentially redistributing wealth", we've been mostly cutting taxes for the wealthy for 30 years straight, with a couple of modest bumps up along the way.
The extremely wealthy in this country have never had a better deal than they currently do. They pay a 15% capital gains and dividend rate. Their marginal rate of 35% is actually lower than the self-employed guy making $100k/year (28% income plus 14% FICA).
Would it really be the end of the world to go back to a 20% rate on cap gains and dividends?
Is there a reason that we want the income earned from work to be taxed at a much higher rate than investment income?
the banks dont need anymore help, they are doing fine with the bail out and the artificially low interest rates. and those banks arent helping the economy with all the money they are making as they are still very tight with loans.
Anyone who's observed a system governed by positive feedback knows that eventually the system is going to hit the rails. That's when things get interesting. Just ask the Czars, or the French Second Estate...
jdw, let me help you out.
These are opinions:
These are facts:
FDIC: Failed Bank List
FRB: Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey: January 2011
FDIC: Bank Data Guide
Yep, the folks who brought us Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Ebay, et.al , were all just plain lucky, and never in the history of the world will all the planets align again to ever allow anyone to duplicate their success... except of course for the next crop of dot com zillionaires from Facebook, Google, Amazon, et.al... and undoubtedly many from the next generation will do equally well. Timing may have played a part (it always does) but to say that Bill Gates would be hacking code if he hadn't stumbled into MS is unprovable speculation, and a bit of a stretch, IMO
and yet still you wont discuss the historical facts i posted, you would rather make this about me.
Here's one source, but it doesn't include table data for 2009
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Each year from 2005 to 2007, the top 1 percent's constantly growing share of income earned and taxes paid set a record. That trend reversed in 2008. In fact, the income share for the top 1 percent of tax returns was lower in 2008 than in 2000, largely due to differences in capital gains.
No - it wouldn't be the end of the world to increase the rate on cap gains and dividends. But it's like a parent giving a kid an allowance. Would you give the kid a bigger allowance if the kid spent it foolishly?
You seem to miss the distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. Sure, Gates worked hard and accomplished a lot. Somebody with the same opportunities who insisted on working 32 hour weeks would have failed.
But, he also had opportunities that are extremely rare. If he had to start over, and the planets didn't align as favorably for him, he'd be a successful software designer, but we wouldn't know his name.
and yet still you wont discuss the historical facts i posted, you would rather make this about me.