Repubs. focus on debt wrong?

#76
#76
droski said:
i assure you ben bernanke has never argued this will have a material negative effect on the economy. as for moody's these were the same geniuses who rated bonds backed by mortgages owned by illegal immigrants as AAA.
Click to expand...

What's your opinion of Peter Orszag?
 
#77
#77
he and rubin should be in jail for what they did to citigroup. he and laura thyson are legit socialists.
 
#78
#78
droski said:
Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance

i've never defended not taxing the poor.
Click to expand...

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability.
Click to expand...

That would be the rich my friend.

This is a Heritage Foundation model and estimate. It should be easy to find the actual hard data. The HF is notoriously biased regarding tax policy / tax scholarship. Not saying there isn't good scholarship there, but I would have serious reservations trusting an HF tax model.

Regardless, as I said, it brings into full disrepute the system you defend. :hi:
 
#79
#79
droski said:
he and rubin should be in jail for what they did to citigroup. he and laura thyson are legit socialists.
Click to expand...

Rubin is the architect for repealing Glass-Steagal and the Super-Keynesian policy you defend!!!!
 
#80
#80
i suppose you didn't read the last two paragraphs? I'll help you out:

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.


Are you seriously arguing that poor people pay too high taxes? yes or no?
 
Last edited:
#82
#82
droski said:
i suppose you didn't read the last two paragraphs? I'll help you out:

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.
Click to expand...

That was just how they could do it. It doesn't say that's what really happened in the hard numbers.

In fact, the article gives the game away at the end. It was the Bush tax rebate which pushed the Tax Policy Center (once fronted by Robert McNamara) which pushed the percentages up -- according to the estimates.

Regardless, it only further brings into disrepute the system you defend.
 
#83
#83
utgibbs said:
That was just how they could do it. It doesn't say that's what really happened in the hard numbers.
.
Click to expand...

oh come on. how many millions of americans fall EXACTLY into that category? use some common sense for once.
 
#84
#84
utgibbs said:
That was just how they could do it. It doesn't say that's what really happened in the hard numbers.

In fact, the article gives the game away at the end. It was the Bush tax rebate which pushed the Tax Policy Center (once fronted by Robert McNamara) which pushed the percentages up -- according to the estimates.

Regardless, it only further brings into disrepute the system you defend.
Click to expand...

Actually, in rereading the article, there is NO way to determine what the HF is suggesting.

They report everything in households and then pretend the majority of those households not paying federal taxes are from middle to lower income.

I think, actually, we need to see the hard numbers. I suspect a fair percentage of those are from higher income brackets as well.

Regardless, it calls into disrepute the system you defend, and frankly, valorizes my approach by extention.
 
#86
#86
Gibbs, stop using gibbslogic to try and work your way through this one.

I'm agreeing with droski on this one, that should tell you all you need to know. The tax system is broke, and Reaganomics and the rich/corporations escaping taxes ain't the big reason why (though stuff like the GE story needs to be ironed out). Anybody in this country producing a means of subsistence above barely getting clothes on their back and food in their mouth needs to be paying some kind of taxes. Nobody needs to be getting a net paycheck from the tax system.
 
#87
#87
milohimself said:
Gibbs, stop using gibbslogic to try and work your way through this one.

I'm agreeing with droski on this one, that should tell you all you need to know. The tax system is broke, and Reaganomics and the rich/corporations escaping taxes ain't the big reason why (though stuff like the GE story needs to be ironed out). Anybody in this country producing a means of subsistence above barely getting clothes on their back and food in their mouth needs to be paying some kind of taxes. Nobody needs to be getting a net paycheck from the tax system.
Click to expand...


The taxation system, at its core, is designed to extract some portion of the GDP out of the economy on an annual basis and give it to the government to run the country. That can be done in several ways. You can have an income tax, a sales tax, a corporate earnings tax, etc.

Politicians are elected to office these days largely on the strength of special interests who figure that the politician they help get elected will either help reduce their rate, ensure some spending side dollars come their way, or promote deductions and discounts that help them achieve being a minimal source of that place where some of the GDP gets taken.

You don't think GE just lucked into that zero tax liability, do you?

The reality is that the people who really have the money and the power to maintain a lower tax bill are the wealthiest, already. What we are witnessing today is the squeeze on the middle class because the poor don't pay taxes and the rich don't, either. All that will happen over time is the further polarization of people around this giant tax liability bubble.
 
#88
#88
lawgator1 said:
You don't think GE just lucked into that zero tax liability, do you?
Click to expand...

no idea what happened there. . .

immelt-obama.jpg
 
#90
#90
utgibbs said:
What exactly did he do at Citigroup? Since repealing Glass-Steagal was almost specifically for them?
Click to expand...

he encouraged prince to buy billions of subprime mortgages. this when he was the HEAD of the company's risk committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?pagewanted=4&ref=business

According to current and former colleagues, he believed that Citigroup was falling behind rivals like Morgan Stanley and Goldman, and he pushed to bulk up the bank’s high-growth fixed-income trading, including the C.D.O. business.

Former colleagues said Mr. Rubin also encouraged Mr. Prince to broaden the bank’s appetite for risk, provided that it also upgraded oversight — though the Federal Reserve later would conclude that the bank’s oversight remained inadequate.
 
Last edited:
#91
#91
milohimself said:
Gibbs, stop using gibbslogic to try and work your way through this one.

I'm agreeing with droski on this one, that should tell you all you need to know. The tax system is broke, (agreement with utgibbs) and Reaganomics and the rich/corporations escaping taxes ain't the big reason why (though stuff like the GE story needs to be ironed out). Please explain how given the curves belowAnybody in this country producing a means of subsistence above barely getting clothes on their back and food in their mouth needs to be paying some kind of taxes. Agreement with utgibbs, although I feel it should only be under a simple, transparent, and progressive system.Nobody needs to be getting a net paycheck from the tax system.Well, we need to guarantee a minimum income, but the point in light of the "model" is well taken.
Click to expand...

We agree, milo, in almost every particular except about the Reagan record which is unambiguous (see below).

My problem is specifically with the Heritage Foundation model. I know enough about HF to suspect this is propaganda from their taxation division. They have, to cover their azz, included the paragraph I quoted earlier. They then seem to intimate all of these 0% tax households are from poor or middle income homes by showing a "model" of how it might happen.

However, they give no evidence this is actually happening in the real world. Moreover, they don't give the actual quintiles these 0 tax households belong to (the meaningful stat in all this).

Which leads me to suspect, more than a fair share of upper income households are paying no net federal tax.

To say nothing of the corporate tax dodges of which I've quoted data before.

It should be easy enough to find the distribution of Zero Tax Households across each quintile. Let's see that data, and then we have something to talk about.

Regardless, I agree. We all have a stake in the system. Whereas I think a minimum income should be guaranteed, a simple, transparent, and progressive tax code will have everyone contributing their fair share.
 
#92
#92
"minimum income should be guaranteed"

why? doesnt' this encourage people to not work?
 
#93
#93
Forgot the graphs:

usa-historical-debt-as-a-of-gdp-from-1929-w2.jpg


This includes Congress:

gross-fed-debt-over-gdp2.jpg


Sorry it's in Korean, but this actually a graph showing the tax revolt of the upper class. The light line is the highest tax bracket in the US, and the darker line at the bottom is the lowest tax bracket. Note the precipitous drop under Reagan (Dumenil and Levy, "Neoliberal Income Trends"):

13318F014B46CD250E8632
 
#94
#94
poor people should pay higher taxes than the rich because they use more gov't services. i'm sure you'd appreciate the transparancy of my tax system.
 
#95
#95
When we recognize the time frame of some of our greatest wealth creation in this country, namely WWII - 1970, it gives a dirt nap to the argument "taxes inhibit wealth creation".

I think we can put to bed as well the notion that Reagan's increased spending and tax cuts had nothing to do with the trajectory we are on now.
 
#96
#96
droski said:
poor people should pay higher taxes than the rich because they use more gov't services. i'm sure you'd appreciate the transparancy of my tax system.
Click to expand...

And that is a specious argument repudiated by Adam Smith himself.

In truth, as we have seen most clearly in our own time, the RICH avail themselves most of the corporate nanny state.

Thanks for supporting my premises yet again, droski. :hi:
 
#97
#97
lawgator1 said:
What I'm seeing is this ridiculous charade that cutting $62 billion is the battleground on debt reduction. Planned Parenthood and NPR may make Michelle Bachmann and some other social conservatives feel like they are fulfilling their mission, but even with the sea change we were supposed to have after the GOP landslide, absolutely nothing is even getting talked about by serious people in the big picture.

I'm depressed because these idiots are getting traction on such de minimis stuff. You guys ought to be depressed because 3 months into it the concept of actually balancing the budget is not even remotely in play.
Click to expand...

Sorry if this has already been addressed - I didn't read the whole thread.

The current fight is over THIS YEAR'S budget - you know the one that Dem's punted on.

The forthcoming budget from the GOP will address larger, structural issues. I believe Ryan is assembling that proposal now but first the current budget has to be finished since Dem's abdicated their responsibility last fall in an effort to save they arses (and it didn't work).
 
#98
#98
droski said:
he encouraged prince to buy billions of subprime mortgages. this when he was the HEAD of the company's risk committee.

The Reckoning - Citigroup Saw No Red Flags Even as It Made Bolder Bets - Series - NYTimes.com

According to current and former colleagues, he believed that Citigroup was falling behind rivals like Morgan Stanley and Goldman, and he pushed to bulk up the bank’s high-growth fixed-income trading, including the C.D.O. business.

Former colleagues said Mr. Rubin also encouraged Mr. Prince to broaden the bank’s appetite for risk, provided that it also upgraded oversight — though the Federal Reserve later would conclude that the bank’s oversight remained inadequate.
Click to expand...

So??!!!! It was perfectly rational, in the system you have defended.

Of course take big risks. You are too big to fail, and you will then get to vacuum up assets we didn't prop up.

According to you, this worked a treat. It is perfectly rational behavior.

Thanks for proving me right as rain again, droski. I'm beginning to consider you my biggest fan. :hi:
 
#100
#100
utgibbs said:
So??!!!! It was perfectly rational, in the system you have defended.

Of course take big risks. You are too big to fail, and you will then get to vacuum up assets we didn't prop up.

According to you, this worked a treat. It is perfectly rational behavior.

Thanks for proving me right as rain again, droski. I'm beginning to consider you my biggest fan. :hi:
Click to expand...

i've defended rubin getting $50 mil from citigroup? link?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top