Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Gladman · 05-20-2011, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladman

Just tossin' this out: who ultimately pays government taxes on corporations?

(I know the answer, but I think there are many Americans who don't really understand economics; instead they get lost in the import of certain percentages, class warfare, and demagoguery.)

Well, I see that the right answer is apparently hidden pretty well. So much for me trying to make simple economics actually simple.

Rodram · 05-21-2011, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladman

Well, I see that the right answer is apparently hidden pretty well. So much for me trying to make simple economics actually simple.

LOL! it does seem that way and it's only going to get worse I'm afraid.

Rodram · 05-21-2011, 10:38 AM

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/280288/TAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg

Gladman · 05-22-2011, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodram

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/280288/TAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg

Awful nice graph, especially with its faulty assumption that more taxes = less debt/spending. If I wanted the govt to have more of my money, I'd donate it. Lot to be said for Tom Jefferson's ideal of a govt that doesn't pick yer pockets. Let's get back to that--only way is by cutting taxes and spending. Sure it means that many people would have to find a job, but anyone who wants to work can find some kind of work of some sort somewhere.
It's a sad day when a pretty graph makes wealth-redistributing Maoist-Marxist-Leninism look nice.

Rodram · 05-22-2011, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladman

Awful nice graph, especially with its faulty assumption that more taxes = less debt/spending. If I wanted the govt to have more of my money, I'd donate it. Lot to be said for Tom Jefferson's ideal of a govt that doesn't pick yer pockets. Let's get back to that--only way is by cutting taxes and spending. Sure it means that many people would have to find a job, but anyone who wants to work can find some kind of work of some sort somewhere.
It's a sad day when a pretty graph makes wealth-redistributing Maoist-Marxist-Leninism look nice.

LMAO!

Rodram · 05-22-2011, 06:36 PM

And yes Gladman, that is my response, if you can't make an educated and informed opinion perhaps you should heed this advice:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"
-Abraham Lincoln

Whitedog · 05-22-2011, 07:39 PM

Rodram, I've been wondering how long it would take for the Beckies to show up in this discussion. Pretty soon we'll be hearing about the 'founding fathers'. I can hardly wait.

I always lopve the one how less taxes = greater revenue. I agree to a point, but these folks don't want to pay ANY taxes. They seem to want all the benefits, but not have to pay for it. Many of them mimic the freeloaders they despise.

Rakhir · 05-22-2011, 07:40 PM

Rodram,

I read through your post about taxation and the top percentage. I cannot find any number I disagree with but I would ask this series of questions concerning the current tax system.

1 Why is it not a good idea to tax the 40% that pays nothing? Really now! They should pay just like the rest of us and I do believer 3%-5% under the current system is more than fair.

2 If we wish to raise taxes again on the top wage earners then lets do so in a meaningful way. Not via capital gains which stifles investment and growth. Give incentives to put that money to work creating new businesses and in turn create job growth.

3 And most importantly, in my humble opinion, scrap the entire system and go to a flat 10% national sales tax. This way everyone pays the same rate but only based upon their amount of purchases. This also does away with cash only transactions being untaxed because eventually those monies are used to purchase goods and services anyway. Now you have more receipts coming in than ever imagined.

But this is not all I would do with this. I would pass a balanced budget amendment for the Federal Government where the size of government can never exceed 20% of GDP. So if the receipts go up then if need be government can grow but inversely if they go down then you have to cut! This would take the carrot and stick out of the hands of politicians who use their offices to line their pockets with the threat of taxation and force them to govern as they were intended.

Understand that I am under no illusions there would eventually be some loopholes discovered but I do believe this would make a huge dent in the politics of corruption all the way around for some time to come!

Whitedog · 05-22-2011, 08:04 PM

!. People with the lowest incomes spend ALL of their money, thereby stimulating the economy. High taxes on the lowest incomes takes money out of the economy.

2. Most capital gains taxes relate to the stock market. The stock market does nothing to support companies, except for IPO's, which actually put money into compnies for start ups or for operating revenues. Nearly all stock trades are between individuals, which do nothing for the companies actual cash flows.

3. How do we know 10% is adaquate. It could be 15%, or maybe 20%, or more.

A balanced budget amendment is a noble goal, but seems to be as elusive as the Rapture

Rodram · 05-22-2011, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitedog

Rodram, I've been wondering how long it would take for the Beckies to show up in this discussion. Pretty soon we'll be hearing about the 'founding fathers'. I can hardly wait.

I always lopve the one how less taxes = greater revenue. I agree to a point, but these folks don't want to pay ANY taxes. They seem to want all the benefits, but not have to pay for it. Many of them mimic the freeloaders they despise.

Yeah no kidding, its too bad that people like that poison the atmosphere of an honest debate like we're having with rakhir.

Check out my response to rakhir and let me know if there is anything to add and if its a fair assessment.

Rodram · 05-23-2011, 01:09 AM

rakhir, I'm on board with Whitedogs response and I think he is spot on.

I have responded with numbers and facts but you only respond with either denial or suspicion. I have to again tell you that it is your advocacy for Corporate America thats under scrutiny here. I advocate for the middle class, which has done nothing in comparison to foster the economic downfall we have experienced.

I've noticed you've not identified your party and I have no objection to that, but your lines of reasoning and argument mirror those of the Republican party and fiscal conservatism and it is with that recognition, that I will respond accordingly. I may cross a line that you may have wanted to avoid so allow me to preempt my apology.

Since you want to continue with the conservative economic program allow me to point out to you it's been disastrous. President Bush's economy was a disaster, as we all know, and no Republican president since Eisenhauer (I like Ike!) has ever produced a balanced budget, but in spite of that, we still want a Republican economic approach which is astonishing to me. Lets look at the conservative record under Reagan, the standard bearer for Conservatism.

Ronald Reagan's faithful followers claim he had used his skills as the Great Communicator to reverse the growth of Leviathan and inaugurate a new era of liberty and free markets. Reagan himself said, "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government."

Yet after nearly eight years of Reaganism, the clamor for more government intervention in the economy was so formidable that Reagan abandoned the free-market position and acquiesced in further crippling of the economy and our liberties. In fact, the number of free-market achievements by the administration are so few that they can be counted on one hand—with fingers left over.

Spending

In 1980, Jimmy Carter's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income". Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, had more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending had risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the then signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid had also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan had tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

We really need not be reminded of the Bush years Right? It's the same result.

President Clinton balanced the budget, President Obama has set us on that path.

Whitedog · 05-23-2011, 07:58 AM

Good reply Rodram. Let me add by saying my perspective is one of those that falls in the middle of the debate. I'm a small business owner that actually DOES create a job or two now and then, and feels it's my civic obligation to obey the law, and pay my taxes. It would be nice to keep ALL my money, but wish to live in a civilized society, so realize taxes are a necessity. The question then becomes, how civilized we wish to be. I also have no problem being in the top income bracket, and jumping the rates from 35% to 39% really has no effect on how much investment I make in my business. I have trouble believing that the far right-wingers can get by with that argument. I just totally bafffles me!!

Rodram · 05-23-2011, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitedog

Good reply Rodram. Let me add by saying my perspective is one of those that falls in the middle of the debate. I'm a small business owner that actually DOES create a job or two now and then, and feels it's my civic obligation to obey the law, and pay my taxes. It would be nice to keep ALL my money, but wish to live in a civilized society, so realize taxes are a necessity. The question then becomes, how civilized we wish to be. I also have no problem being in the top income bracket, and jumping the rates from 35% to 39% really has no effect on how much investment I make in my business. I have trouble believing that the far right-wingers can get by with that argument. I just totally bafffles me!!

Wow, your perspective in this debate would be invaluable! This brings a totally different angle on how all this plays out. If I could, I would love your perspective on job creation and to elaborate on the Obama administrations efforts concerning such. Also small business loans and specifically have the banks been cooperative in that regard since Obama urged them to loan to you guys?

Whitedog · 05-23-2011, 09:15 AM

I'm lucky in the fact that I can finance my own operations, but my bank has always been very receptive to my needs if necessary, so I've had no problems. I keep enough money in the bank that they love me.

I think the Obama administration is doing about the best that can be done, under the circumstances. Sure, there are areas that could be better, but most of the people involved, are dedicated, hard working folks, doing what they can. No matter what the news channels say, the economy isn't THAT bad. If we want more jobs here in the US, then the only way to compete under current conditions, is to reduce the pay scales to about $5.00/day to compete. THAT'S when the jobs will come back. I'm sure there are a lot of employers that would love that, but it's not an option, from my viewpoint.

As far as creating jobs, jobs are created when there is a necessity. If new employees are needed, they will be hired. Payroll expenses are deductible anyway, so tax rates on profits have little to do with job creation. If it's profitable to hire, we will. If the position won't produce a profit, there's no point in putting someone there. It's very simple economics, and the argument that higher taxes on higher incomes stifles job growth is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Rodram · 05-23-2011, 03:36 PM

I'm glad you shared that with me. It's good straight to the source info and falls in line with what I believe to be the truth. Rakhir has also given me great insight and perspective on where he and the oil industry stands on these issues, kudos to him also.

This narrative that no taxes, small government equals prosperity that's been hammered into the general public for over 40yrs has to go down in history as one of the greatest bamboozlements in politics.
I think Republicans have finally dug their own hole and are getting in it as we speak. The rabidness of the baggers is now biting them in the ass, their candidates are just horrible and are a complete disaster, the Republican Gov are following the conservative mantra and they are finally exposing the conservative agenda and that is to destroy the middle class and create 2 levels of society and that's rich and poor.