The "People's Budget" from Progressive Caucus

#27
#27
VolDad said:
The rich already pay 40% of the taxes.

Corporations don't pay taxes. It is an expense that they pass on to the end consumer.
Click to expand...

Part 1: They also own 80% of the country. Which proves we have a REGRESSIVE tax system (wealth transfer, joe).

2nulhsm.jpg


Corporations cannot pass on taxes to the consumer, by the very tenets of a market economy.
 
#28
#28
VolDad said:
As a general statement - The rich keep getting richer because they continue doing the things that made them rich; the poor keep getting poorer because they continue doing the things that made them poor.
Click to expand...

Almost laughably childish.
 
#32
#32
utvolpj said:
then explain since you seem to be the only one thinking it
Click to expand...

Competitors will easily pay the taxes out of profits, and increase market share by keeping price at what the market will bear.

:epic facepalm:

For goodness sake people, you don't even know the system you worship!!!!!
 
#34
#34
utgibbs said:
Part 1: They also own 80% of the country. Which proves we have a REGRESSIVE tax system (wealth transfer, joe).
Click to expand...

Then you should be happy since Corporations are groups of people – employees and shareholders. The vast majority of which would never be considered rich.
 
#35
#35
utgibbs said:
Competitors will easily pay the taxes out of profits, and increase market share by keeping price at what the market will bear.

:epic facepalm:

For goodness sake people, you don't even know the system you worship!!!!!
Click to expand...

seriously?

why do you think profits exist?

your supposition above should hold under all levels of taxation yet we don't see it work like you suggest. I wonder why?
 
#37
#37
VolDad said:
Say what?!?
Click to expand...

It's absurd.

Remove corporate taxes for companies in a competitive market and prices will drop across the board to a new low level proportionate with the tax drop.

Consumers pay less for those products. Pretty straight forward.
 
#38
#38
Not debating whether or not supply-side economics works or not,

But some folks in here seem to be glossing over why it's an unpopular concept. Sheerly political in nature, sure, but the very wealthiest are seeing their estates grow at astronomic rates. They are paying fewer taxes as a percentage than the middle class, by a pretty significant amount. In 2007, per the IRS, less charitable contributions, the average top 400 income earner in the US sends 18.7% of his income to the government. The median wage single worker sent 23.4% of his income to the government.

Again, not debating whether or not it works, but one can see how supply side looks highly unpopular.
 
#39
#39
milohimself said:
Not debating whether or not supply-side economics works or not,

But some folks in here seem to be glossing over why it's an unpopular concept. Sheerly political in nature, sure, but the very wealthiest are seeing their estates grow at astronomic rates.
Click to expand...

Investments, dividends, lending, etc.

Private banking is not the same as your checking account. A very wealthy individual, who leaves a large sum of money in a bank, gets a much higher interest rate because that bank can rely on that money to stay in the bank (ie: it can use it for its own purposes, such as lending and reinvestment.)

The wealthiest in this country do not have your 5% savings account.

It isn't difficult to understand 10% of of a large number, each year, increasing.

As far as paying taxes... tax law, tax law, tax law. Or, in the parlance of our youth: hate the game, not the player.

Also, when we drastically increase the tax rate of the wealthy, who is going to cover the offset loss of lending by private banking?

Well, we will, again. Interest rates will spike, and we'll see another government injection of cash... from taxes... so, even though it looks simple, it appears rather complex to me.

Economies being interwoven, go figure.
 
#40
#40
milohimself said:
Not debating whether or not supply-side economics works or not,

But some folks in here seem to be glossing over why it's an unpopular concept. Sheerly political in nature, sure, but the very wealthiest are seeing their estates grow at astronomic rates. They are paying fewer taxes as a percentage than the middle class, by a pretty significant amount. In 2007, per the IRS, less charitable contributions, the average top 400 income earner in the US sends 18.7% of his income to the government. The median wage single worker sent 23.4% of his income to the government.

Again, not debating whether or not it works, but one can see how supply side looks highly unpopular.
Click to expand...

To me the ultimate question is a macro one - at what point to you maximize the take.

I'm not opposed to repealing the Bush rates on top earners but I'm not sure what it gets you in the end.

Historically, we see the 19-20% number of tax revenues to GDP. Raise taxes too much and you depress GDP thus depress revenues.

Obviously you can't continue to lower taxes and maintain revenues but there's a small window for raising them too.

The other problem with the debate from the "tax the rich" crowd is that it views our problems as revenue vs. spending problems. Government has grown like crazy - why should we think we don't have enough government? Those golden years Gibbs loves to go on and on about had considerably lower spending on safety net programs - if those days were so great, maybe we should roll back government programs to match those of the day?
 
#41
#41
milohimself said:
Not debating whether or not supply-side economics works or not,

But some folks in here seem to be glossing over why it's an unpopular concept. Sheerly political in nature, sure, but the very wealthiest are seeing their estates grow at astronomic rates. They are paying fewer taxes as a percentage than the middle class, by a pretty significant amount. In 2007, per the IRS, less charitable contributions, the average top 400 income earner in the US sends 18.7% of his income to the government. The median wage single worker sent 23.4% of his income to the government.

Again, not debating whether or not it works, but one can see how supply side looks highly unpopular.
Click to expand...

this is eerily similar to the whole "record profits" thing that started a couple years ago. You have to look at more than 1 number to get the whole picture. That's even hard for Warren Buffett
 
#42
#42
Any cuts that don't include entitlement reform and defense aren't serious. For the most part, if government would leave most people the hell alone we wouldn't be in a lot of this mess.
 
#43
#43
rjd970 said:
Any cuts that don't include entitlement reform and defense aren't serious. For the most part, if government would leave most people the hell alone we wouldn't be in a lot of this mess.
Click to expand...


Get Gibbs to tell us what government spending looked like back in those glory (pre-Reagan) days. Viewed today, that government routinely killed granny, starved children and cowboy poets were on their own.
 
#44
#44
milohimself said:
... In 2007, per the IRS, less charitable contributions, the average top 400 income earner in the US sends 18.7% of his income to the government. The median wage single worker sent 23.4% of his income to the government..
Click to expand...

Say what?!?
 
#45
#45
milohimself said:
Not debating whether or not supply-side economics works or not,

But some folks in here seem to be glossing over why it's an unpopular concept. Sheerly political in nature, sure, but the very wealthiest are seeing their estates grow at astronomic rates. They are paying fewer taxes as a percentage than the middle class, by a pretty significant amount. In 2007, per the IRS, less charitable contributions, the average top 400 income earner in the US sends 18.7% of his income to the government. The median wage single worker sent 23.4% of his income to the government.

Again, not debating whether or not it works, but one can see how supply side looks highly unpopular.
Click to expand...

Guess%20Who%20Really%20Pays%20the%20Taxes.jpg
 
#46
#46
milohimself said:
Not debating whether or not supply-side economics works or not,

But some folks in here seem to be glossing over why it's an unpopular concept. Sheerly political in nature, sure, but the very wealthiest are seeing their estates grow at astronomic rates. They are paying fewer taxes as a percentage than the middle class, by a pretty significant amount. In 2007, per the IRS, less charitable contributions, the average top 400 income earner in the US sends 18.7% of his income to the government. The median wage single worker sent 23.4% of his income to the government.

Again, not debating whether or not it works, but one can see how supply side looks highly unpopular.
Click to expand...

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?
 
#47
#47
utgibbs said:
Competitors will easily pay the taxes out of profits, and increase market share by keeping price at what the market will bear.

:epic facepalm:

For goodness sake people, you don't even know the system you worship!!!!!
Click to expand...

so would this apply to just taxes or any additional cost to supplying a good? I'm beginning to think the reason you're against the market is that you don't actually know what it is
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
To me the ultimate question is a macro one - at what point to you maximize the take.

I'm not opposed to repealing the Bush rates on top earners but I'm not sure what it gets you in the end.

Historically, we see the 19-20% number of tax revenues to GDP. Raise taxes too much and you depress GDP thus depress revenues.

Obviously you can't continue to lower taxes and maintain revenues but there's a small window for raising them too.

The other problem with the debate from the "tax the rich" crowd is that it views our problems as revenue vs. spending problems. Government has grown like crazy - why should we think we don't have enough government? Those golden years Gibbs loves to go on and on about had considerably lower spending on safety net programs - if those days were so great, maybe we should roll back government programs to match those of the day?
Click to expand...
True, but the underlying belief of those who oppose it (from a legitimate economic standpoint, anyhow) is demand-side. The fact is the US has been unrelentingly supply-side in its approach for about 30 years now. Clinton didn't stem any of it, and in fact reduced some welfare programs such as the advent of TANF. The questions are: Has the lot of most improved in this time span? Has GDP gone in the right direction? Have tax revenues increased?

Loaded questions, I know, they're just rhetorical.

rjd970 said:
Any cuts that don't include entitlement reform and defense aren't serious. For the most part, if government would leave most people the hell alone we wouldn't be in a lot of this mess.
Click to expand...
The whole idea here is to boost GDP and thus boost the amount of taxable income at a lower rate, which would then spur more GDP, and it cycles so on and so forth until we all have jetpacks and Aston Martins or something (all for that).

Point being, if you're getting more tax money, you can do more with that stuff.
 
#49
#49
milohimself said:
In 2007, per the IRS, less charitable contributions, the average top 400 income earner in the US sends 18.7% of his income to the government. The median wage single worker sent 23.4% of his income to the government.
Click to expand...

Must be some crazy effect of payroll taxes - no way this is Fed income taxes.

In 2007, the tax rate on income didn't hit 25% until 31K. Below that the rate was either 10% or 15%. If someone was single and made 50K, took the standard deduction their Fed income tax would average about 11% of their income.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top