The "People's Budget" from Progressive Caucus

#51
#51
milohimself said:
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?

GDP has definitely gone up and at about the rate considered good growth (although in spurts) and tax revenues have gone up.

Even with welfare reform, the safety net spending has grown considerably since the pre-Reagan glory days of non neo-liberalism or whatever other crazy buzz words Gibbs wants to attach.

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


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.
Click to expand...

See this is where I disagree. The point is to determine what ought to be the role of government and what ought not be then determine the most equitable way to fund that. The whole idea of government "management" of the economic cycle is problematic. It may work in theory but given politicians are the implementers we continually see efforts to prime the growth but not the reverse to cool excessive growth. As a result intervention fuels a boom/bust cycle while trying to eliminate it.

Alternatively what I'm arguing is that starting with a position that deficits are a revenue problem ignores the question of what government should be doing. Government naturally grows rather than shrinks and we are continually fighting over how to pay for the growth (supply-side or taxation).

If we start from a spending side (what should we be spending on) then we can address the taxation side. Otherwise, the tail is wagging the dog.
 
#52
#52
milohimself said:
That's where the base of all tax revenue comes from, not who pays how much. Different than what I was going with.


That only includes income tax. I said how much money that one makes ends up going to taxes.

VD, I am pulling numbers from the IRS here.
Click to expand...

The numbers I provided were from the IRS as well. Look at the bottom of each chart for the fine print.
 
#53
#53
milohimself said:
VD, I am pulling numbers from the IRS here.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the assumptions in the number for the median wage earner.

By my calculations, they end up with an effective income tax rate of about 11% (on 50K in earnings).

Where does the other 12% of fed taxes come from? 7.2% would be payroll taxes (assuming all 50k is subject to payroll taxes).
 
#54
#54
Blame the rich, blame the middle class, blame the lower class, blame the libs, blame the pubs, and blame everything under the sun, except the fact that the American dream has turned from everyone being able to live freely, to being a slave to their lenders, and that includes the government too. It's everyone's fault that we are in the predicament we are in. More taxes or less taxes aren't going to solve this problem, it all starts with the federal government raising the debt ceiling, on an almost yearly basis, and thinking it's OK to do so. What happens when people spend more money than they make?? They can't pay for the necessities of life, food, shelter, clothing, and other things. So, if they would breakdown every government expenditure, and see if it's a "necessity", then and only then would we be able to start breaking down this wall of debt we have. We can't keep going like we are, or China and other countries will end up owning us.
 
#55
#55
volinbham said:
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?
Click to expand...

Except it has worked exactly as I have said:

top-tax-bracket-chart.jpg


Now, I know you will (maybe not you, volinbham) claim ignorance and demand a history lesson. I know some will say "the competition was bombed back to the Stone Age" blah, blah, blah. You have been challenged and found wanting with every excuse.

And this is why I know none of you are business people:

Taxes simply do not inhibit wealth creation.
 
#57
#57
utvolpj said:
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
Click to expand...

And now you step in about as big a steamer as you possibly can.

The cost of making goods has nothing to do with the tax on profits.

This is why I know none of you are entrepreneurs / business people.

Taxes simply, NEVER inhibit wealth creation.
 
#59
#59
utgibbs said:
Except it has worked exactly as I have said:

top-tax-bracket-chart.jpg


Now, I know you will (maybe not you, volinbham) claim ignorance and demand a history lesson. I know some will say "the competition was bombed back to the Stone Age" blah, blah, blah. You have been challenged and found wanting with every excuse.

And this is why I know none of you are business people:

Taxes simply do not inhibit wealth creation.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you arguing. We are saying that corporate taxes are basically passed through into prices. While it won't be perfectly correlated if you raise corporate taxes you will raise prices. if you lower corporate taxes you will lower prices.
 
#60
#60
utgibbs said:
And now you step in about as big a steamer as you possibly can.

The cost of making goods has nothing to do with the tax on profits.

This is why I know none of you are entrepreneurs / business people.

Taxes simply, NEVER inhibit wealth creation.
Click to expand...

it a cost that's included in the price of the good and would change if taxes were increased. No different than if the trucking companies added a fuel surcharge that is then passed along to consumers.

Do you really think these companies would just pay the increase out of their profits? Have you ever had to sell anything to make a living?
 
#61
#61
utgibbs said:
And now you step in about as big a steamer as you possibly can.

The cost of making goods has nothing to do with the tax on profits.

This is why I know none of you are entrepreneurs / business people.

Taxes simply, NEVER inhibit wealth creation.
Click to expand...

Well technically the cost of making goods does have something to do with the tax on profits since the cost of producing is one key determinant of profit.

What you have done is what you've always claimed we do - you've shown that corporate taxes on profits do get passed through in prices and thus are paid by consumers and not corporations. Drop corporate taxes to zero and prices will come down. Raise corporate taxes and prices will go up.
 
#62
#62
volinbham said:
I'd like to see the assumptions in the number for the median wage earner.

By my calculations, they end up with an effective income tax rate of about 11% (on 50K in earnings).

Where does the other 12% of fed taxes come from? 7.2% would be payroll taxes (assuming all 50k is subject to payroll taxes).
Click to expand...
I'm short on time to go back and find it out, but:

- The median wage for single income worker is less than $50k, I think that may be the mean average
- I'm not referring to income taxes, the figures I found were out of all the money you make less charitable donations, how much goes to the government on average.

utgibbs said:
Except it has worked exactly as I have said:

top-tax-bracket-chart.jpg


Now, I know you will (maybe not you, volinbham) claim ignorance and demand a history lesson. I know some will say "the competition was bombed back to the Stone Age" blah, blah, blah. You have been challenged and found wanting with every excuse.

And this is why I know none of you are business people:

Taxes simply do not inhibit wealth creation.
Click to expand...
Gibbs, you are absolutely right to question whether or not supply-side economics works, but the way you are going about it makes no sense.

Aside from that, you need some extra explanation with that graph. It's incomplete.

In theory, supply-side should work. Following the Laffer curve, there exists some tax percentage that will maximize investment, boost GDP through more money available for investment, thereby broadening the amount of taxable income and boosting tax revenue. GHWB famously referred to this idea as "voodoo economics." The idea makes sense on paper, though, and if it works as promised I'd be all for it, provided answers to:

- What parameters are needed to encourage re-investment into this country's economy?
- Is this sustainable, or will a boom/bust cycle continue?

As with any economic premise, there are endless "what-ifs" to follow and challenge that idea. Again, I'm all for whatever works. I think public programs for healthcare/nutrition, education, tenants rights, etc. are good but I also recognize that creating a sustainable base for that to happen is the first and foremost priority.

From an economic perspective, it all comes down to this: Does supply dictate demand or does demand dictate supply? I realize that the former is not the populist idea, and that the debate is politically charged, so that we rarely get to see some discussion on it without people injecting their own personal interest.
 
#63
#63
volinbham said:
Well technically the cost of making goods does have something to do with the tax on profits since the cost of producing is one key determinant of profit.

What you have done is what you've always claimed we do - you've shown that corporate taxes on profits do get passed through in prices and thus are paid by consumers and not corporations. Drop corporate taxes to zero and prices will come down. Raise corporate taxes and prices will go up.
Click to expand...

Wrong on every particular, but let's focus on bold.

Corporate taxes have been zero (real) for awhile now.

What have prices been doing?

GSM.
 
#64
#64
milohimself said:
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....
Click to expand...

Why did you exclude charitable contributions and only include the top 400?
 
#65
#65
utgibbs said:
Wrong on every particular, but let's focus on bold.

Corporate taxes have been zero (real) for awhile now.

What have prices been doing?

GSM.
Click to expand...

Fallacious argument on several grounds

1) only for some companies have real taxes been zero - most are paying taxes.

1a) if real taxes were zero for corporations it still doesn't negate the fact that changing that from zero to some positive number would put upward pressure on prices.

2) price changes are directly impacted by costs (including tax costs). Operating and supply costs have risen in several industries putting upward pressure on prices.

Taxes on profits are a cost to corporations. Remove that cost and it will be reflected in pricing. Costs are passed through to the consumer.
 
Last edited:
#66
#66
utgibbs said:
And now you step in about as big a steamer as you possibly can.

The cost of making goods has nothing to do with the tax on profits.

This is why I know none of you are entrepreneurs / business people.

Taxes simply, NEVER inhibit wealth creation.
Click to expand...

I will be the first to admit I don't know tax law that well but your last statement is just seems retarded. Less taxation=more money in my pocket =greater wealth.

The American dream is still alive but some are quite content on living in the new American dream of living off the government. I busted my ass thru college making less than 15,000 a year and never had to pay a dime. They sent my taxes I payed in back to me plus some even though it wasn't much. I was then am still very much in favor of a flat tax rate. It is fair across the board.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#67
#67
the Constitution actually calls for a uniform tax rate, but Marxists like gibbs prefer their "simple, transparent, and progressive" garbage
 
#69
#69
milohimself said:
I'm short on time to go back and find it out, but:

- The median wage for single income worker is less than $50k, I think that may be the mean average
- I'm not referring to income taxes, the figures I found were out of all the money you make less charitable donations, how much goes to the government on average.


Gibbs, you are absolutely right to question whether or not supply-side economics works, but the way you are going about it makes no sense.

Aside from that, you need some extra explanation with that graph. It's incomplete.

In theory, supply-side should work. Following the Laffer curve, there exists some tax percentage that will maximize investment, boost GDP through more money available for investment, thereby broadening the amount of taxable income and boosting tax revenue. GHWB famously referred to this idea as "voodoo economics." The idea makes sense on paper, though, and if it works as promised I'd be all for it, provided answers to:

- What parameters are needed to encourage re-investment into this country's economy?
- Is this sustainable, or will a boom/bust cycle continue?

As with any economic premise, there are endless "what-ifs" to follow and challenge that idea. Again, I'm all for whatever works. I think public programs for healthcare/nutrition, education, tenants rights, etc. are good but I also recognize that creating a sustainable base for that to happen is the first and foremost priority.

From an economic perspective, it all comes down to this: Does supply dictate demand or does demand dictate supply? I realize that the former is not the populist idea, and that the debate is politically charged, so that we rarely get to see some discussion on it without people injecting their own personal interest.
Click to expand...

You are right to use a theoretical approach, and I applaud you for it.

I am, admittedly, sometime lazy.

The curve above shows the years of our greatest wealth creation (and the wealth creation of all our "competitors") coincided when taxes were highest. And thus simply negates all the claims to the contrary in one fine, real world stroke.
 
Last edited:
#70
#70
VOLFAN_MTSUALUM said:
I will be the first to admit I don't know tax law that well but your last statement is just seems retarded. Less taxation=more money in my pocket =greater wealth.

That's not wealth creation.

The American dream is still alive but some are quite content on living in the new American dream of living off the government. I busted my ass thru college making less than 15,000 a year and never had to pay a dime. They sent my taxes I payed in back to me plus some even though it wasn't much. I was then am still very much in favor of a flat tax rate. It is fair across the board.

No, it's not. Progressive is the only fair tax.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Adam Smith gave the maxims for taxation. Believe it or not, I largely agree:

1. Simple
2. Transparent
3. Progressive
 
#71
#71
utgibbs said:
Adam Smith gave the maxims for taxation. Believe it or not, I largely agree:

1. Simple
2. Transparent
3. Progressive
Click to expand...

No its not the most fair, why should I ask someone that has done better decision making with their money, smarter than me, more ballsy (risking everything as an entrepreneur ) to pay higher percentage than me? Why am I special for making less than 50k? When I am older and am making more money I don't want to have to pay more taxes. It goes against the entire American dream.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#72
#72
VOLFAN_MTSUALUM said:
No its not the most fair, why should I ask someone that has done better decision making with their money, smarter than me, more ballsy (risking everything as an entrepreneur ) to pay higher percentage than me? Why am I special for making less than 50k? When I am older and am making more money I don't want to have to pay more taxes. It goes against the entire American dream.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Or sings better, or is 6'9'' and has a great shot from the wing, or is better at running ponzi schemes, or a host of other criteria having little to do with hard work, "balls", or anything else.

Let me tell you the first rule I learned as an entrepreneur: "Never use your own money, kid." These mythological notions everyone has of entrepreneurship, "risk", and the like frankly astonishes me. It is much, much different actually doing this stuff.

Regardless, those who benefit most from the system, should rightly (and fairly) pay more. It's just simple economics.
 
#73
#73
utgibbs said:
Or sings better, or is 6'9'' and has a great shot from the wing, or is better at running ponzi schemes, or a host of other criteria having little to do with hard work, "balls", or anything else.

Let me tell you the first rule I learned as an entrepreneur: "Never use your own money, kid." These mythological notions everyone has of entrepreneurship, "risk", and the like frankly astonishes me. It is much, much different actually doing this stuff.

Regardless, those who benefit most from the system, should rightly (and fairly) pay more. It's just simple economics.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you do for a living?
 
#74
#74
utgibbs said:
If you don't want to run with the big dogs....

I'll have my opinion to be sure. Surely that shouldn't scare anyone. I wanted to gauge reaction of people who don't agree with me. I was also looking to see if anyone rushed to defend the Ryan proposals anymore.

Again, if your opinion is supported by facts from the real world, what is there to fear?
Click to expand...

You're not a big dog.

You're a loud mouth know-it-all loon.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top