"6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History" - Page 4

Anyway...back to pending tax hikes...someone here (Wormhole I believe) says he's looking forward to paying more taxes (though he never answered me when I asked if he was currently claiming any tax deductions or if he was taking all of his income in the most taxable form.)

How about the rest of us? Who's looking forward to paying more taxes?

You wrote "in other words"!

Got just the link for you King: Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt. Credit cards cheerfully accepted!

Pay up. Or, shut up.

OK, that was nasty. I apologize. I don't mean to direct that missive specifically at you since lots of people have the same idea. The problem is that it's completely naive to think higher taxes will have any effect at all at reducing the debt. Regardless of marginal tax rates, actual Treasury revenue from the income tax as a percent of GDP has remained flat for decades. (Corollary: the only way to increase tax revenue is to increase private GDP. More on that later.)


If we were to increase taxes to sufficiently offset the $1,200,000,000,000 budget deficit that is expected to exist year after year from now on, we would have to approximately double everyone's taxes, and this assumption completely ignores the effect of increased taxes on behaviour.

Clearly doubling everyone's tax liability is impossible - the money simply isn't there. Of course, by its actions it seems Congress and the president think otherwise.

The tax code exists largely for social engineering - to encourage or discourage certain specific behaviour, and to empower the people who administer and control it to manipulate their "little people." Such psychopaths have existed as long as we've had societies, and there is no shortage of them today. Rapists and child molesters share this mental defect, but most of these mental defectives find honest work in Congress, government employees at all levels, and the lobbying firms and other leeches that exist in Washington.

So, if tax receipts remain flat regardless of tax rates, what effect do lowered taxes have? Look to the past: let people and corporations keep more of what they earn, and they'll spend and invest it. Increased private sector monetary circulation leads to business expansion, lowered unemployment, greater charitable gifts, a rising housing market... the list is endless.

On the other hand, what effect do increased tax rates have? We're experiencing it. No, taxes haven't gone up yet, but taxpayers and businesses aren't stupid. They're facing not the likelihood of increased taxes, regulation and intrusion, but the certainty of it thanks to tax increases masquerading as a "health care bill", energy regulation and taxes, banking "reform" that will simply make credit more expensive or impossible to obtain, and the list is growing. Despite a severe economic slowdown, the current administration has literally gone looking for wildly irresponsible spending increases, and a complicit Congress provided it "to save the President". More spending than in all prior administrations, combined. That's a lot of money to spend on the fate of one man.

It's bizarre, but understandable given the current administration employs (again, for the first time in history) exactly no one with any private sector business experience.

This brings me to your next point:


You're right to a degree, historically R vs. D has made little difference. There have been few exceptions. Bush Jr. campaigned on a platform to reduce government expansion and irresponsible spending, then went on to radically increase both. The voter anger that ensued gave rise to a candidate who would never have been successful had the public not been so demanding of some amorphous, undefined "change". That - and the RNC's nomination of a completely unelectable, lukewarm, doddering competitor contributed to the perfect storm that exists today. I hope it, like most "perfect storms" is an aberration not likely to be repeated anytime soon.

Finally, for those who want to place the blame on Bush's tax cuts. This non-partisan CBO document proves that lowered marginal tax rates resulted in an increase in Treasury revenue:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8...axRevenues.pdf

This clearly repudiates (as Sarah Palin might say, refudiates) any claim that Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" had anything to do with our current malaise. If anything, facts show the opposite is true - lowered marginal tax rates always result in increased economic activity, greater employment, increased investment, and more tax revenue. The challenge, as it was during the Reagan era, is to avoid commensurate spending increases. Reagan never got the (D-controlled) Congress to get off their spending binge, yet the robust decades-long business expansion that ensued led to the first balanced budget in many many years - notably, after 1994, when Republicans took control of Congress and briefly put the brakes on out-of-control spending. In his book "The Age of Turbulence" (good read BTW) Alan Greenspan wrote that this unexpected surplus became almost unwieldy.

I'll concede the point that the seeds for our current recession were planted during the Bush administration, if one concedes the point that Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a robust economy that lasted well into the Clinton era.

I trust I have now provided you enough information to reconsider your willingness to accept any tax rate increase. It doesn't work. Never has. It's a fool's errand (plenty of them in Congress, unfortunately).

---

sources:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartb...t-tax-receipts
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...rs/revenue.cfm
John Galt's vast memory, which predates the Internet

*cue tonton*

Ha Ha Ha

Keep in mind I said I would support TEMPORARY tax increases... only if it were SPECIFICALLY used only to accelerate the paying off of debt. I also only supported it if it were side-by-side with reduced spending...

NOT a reduction in the growth rate of spending... but actually reducing spending.

I also don't think debt it should be paid off by donations... it needs to be spread amongst the citizenry... at the same tax RATE for each and every one.

Double my taxes for a year or two??... I'm ok with that... double EVERYones, and pay off our obligations. Then go back to "normal" taxation... and we'll find that without all the debt servicing, we could get by with a much LOWER tax rate than we currently have. (well... except for the freeloaders under our current system that pay NO income taxes!)

Yup! And it doesn't change a thing.

He still hasn't got anything to support his statement.

Got support for your statements?

Or is it you who's just going Blah, blah, blah?

That was to be expected at this point and it doesn't mean an automatic endorsement of the Republican party.

Your post history.

No - it does not prove any such thing.

From you link:

So now you're just pretending I said stuff that I didn't. I didn't claim what you're saying.

So riddle me this Obamapologists: In 2011 the health care "reform" (supposedly reducing the budget) starts to kick further into gear and the Bush tax cuts expire (supposedly making those greedy rich people finally "pay their fair share") and the capital gains tax rate goes up (further making those greedy rich people "pay their fair share") and yet...the deficit doesn't budge still hovering around $1.5T. Why?

*sigh*

It's apparent you didn't read a word I wrote King. I hereby withdraw my apology.


Good luck with that. It's never been done. The mere suggestion of reductions in the rate of growth cause Congressmen to run and hide. Next to some lurid scandal, not bringing home the pork is the fastest way to get booted out of office. Remember, these psychopaths have no other legal means of satisfying their urges than to get re-elected year after year. No one dares put the brakes on the pork train.


Ah! A flat tax. Now you're talking.

(that was sarcasm)


You live in a state with no income tax, so do you consider yourself a "freeloader", King? So you're "ok" with doubling your zero percent state income tax. I would be too. If doubling it is good, tripling it ought to be even better!

(more sarcasm)

Those of us in higher tax brackets might have a different opinion. I'd be willing to wager that a 100% tax rate increase might not go over so well, considering some are paying nearly 50% of our income in taxes at all levels (and if you think there's some magical way around paying that punitive effective tax rate, you're sadly mistaken.)

How's TX doing with its state budget anyway? How's your unemployment rate? How's your rate of business growth and investment? If I'm not mistaken, they're all in splendid shape. Businesses are flocking to TX in droves, have been for years.

By the way, is your governor a D or an R? No difference between 'em? Riiight.

Of the 37 or so states whose budgets are in serious jeopardy, TX is mysteriously absent. Why? Could no personal income tax have anything to do with it? No inheritance tax? No tax on Social Security benefits? How about a low corporate income tax rate, which TX also enjoys? No wonder you're so willing to pay more King, you're living in a relative tax paradise. Consider the other 42 states that do have income taxes - all but five of them are facing an unprecedented budget mess. They can't just print money, bankrupting our children like the Treasury's doing, so guess where they're going to turn for help?

Hint: the "bailout era" is just beginning.

I recognize Bush Jr. opened the door on that era, he let himself be swayed far too easily by Hank Paulson and his Wall Street ilk. Bush had no clue what he was doing - he actually stated the bailout was necessary to "avoid moral hazard". Who didn't cringe when he heard that faux pax - the AIG bailout was the

very definition of moral hazard. Clearly he misunderstood (or misunderestimated) its implications. Mr. Obama could have - should have - slammed this door shut. They're both clueless. The difference is that Obama is clueless writ large.

Bush and Obama both had opportunites for a defining moment in these crises. They both blew it in epic fashion.
Back to the states. At one of those extremes lies New Jersey - a state that hasn't added a single new private sector job in seven years, a state that suffers a net loss of residents every single year, the state with the highest property taxes in the country. The state that ranks dead last in business and tax-friendly policies year after year. NJ is in very bad shape. How about New York - can't balance its budget despite having one of the highest income tax rates in the country, and home to the wealthiest city in the country. If high taxes were the cure to budget deficits NY ought to be swimming in money. And we all know California is the poster child for fiscal irresponsibility as well as high taxes.

Do you see a correlation here? Of course not... you didn't read my last post, and you're not reading this either. Have you considered a career in Congress? They don't read much either.

Which brings me to Mr. Fishhead. He read one line out of many, and from it, concluded the following:


Weak, weak, weak. The report explicitly states Treasury revenues increased to the largest in the history of the United States a few short years after tax rates were reduced. Might this be due to some inexplicable, weird, totally mysterious relationship that the rest of the report makes abundantly clear?

Perhaps a picture will help:

Stock talking point.

No. You didn't say much definite outside of riding the line with your inference. So people couldn't tie you down to something. Like usual.

I did actually say something. Additionally you inferred more from it than I said. It's not that complicated.

You really do deserve a refund on your education. \



Whatever.


Now, back to the topic of big tax hikes under Democratic rule...

How do we all feel about paying higher taxes? How come those tax hikes (allegedly only on the "rich") don't appear to be lowering the deficit in 2011? What's up with that? How do we all think the "rich" will actually react to higher tax rates?

Ok... I thought the thread was about FEDERAL government. My bad.

I'm in the 28% tax bracket federally, not including FICA, Medicaid, et al. Leads me to believe I pay more than most.

TX (and many other states) collect their taxes via sales tax, property tax, etc... So don't worry, we pay plenty of taxes to the state as well.

When I referee to "freeloaders" , I was thinking of people with earned income that still manage to pay "0" taxes. There are a lot of them. And they tend to be the ones using the social programs that taxPAYERS fund.


I agree that none of my ideas would ever have a chance of being enacted by elected "leaders". I suppose that makes it easy to espouse such ideas. That doesnt make them bad ideas though.
You also need to keep my comments about higher taxes in context... I attached provisions to my acceptance of the idea. Provisions that ensure no congressman, dem or rep, would ever consider it.

No, you're right, the thread is about Federal taxes - the ones about to go nuts next year. I was intentionally drawing attention to the fact TX has no state income tax, and its economy is vibrant in all respects. Compare it to NY and CA, states which ought to be doing fine, if not for government's insatiable appetite for taxes on every activity.

If you don't live in one of those distressed states, it's hard to imagine their misery. Count your blessings - it's about to get worse for them. Their misery is clearly not due to low taxes - they're high already. It's due to their existence.


Understood, however, most states with income taxes assess those additional taxes as well. I have plenty of friends stuck in NJ paying $17,000 in property taxes. Sometimes more. One pays $70,000. That's every year - an amount which always increases. NJ also has a progressive income tax and sales taxes (7% as I recall). NJ's taxers on businesses are equally punitive, regulations more so.

If you don't live there, you won't believe me. Truth is stranger than fiction.

NJ survived for over 150 years with no income tax. Just like TX. Businesses fled from high tax jurisdictions like NY and Philadelphia and prospered in New Jersey for many years... the exact opposite is happening today, except they go to states like TX, or out of the country entirely. What happens when they leave? Same as what happens when a high income resident leaves - no more revenue to their state governments.


Agreed - there are millions who pay nothing, millions more who pay very, very little, who benefit greatly from the tax cuts about to expire. They just don't realize it yet. Wait until January.

I think this fact is beginning to frighten Congressmen whose terms are about to expire... it will be very entertaining to see who campaigns on an "extending the Bush tax cuts" platform.


I hope not. Taxes are my greatest extravagance - by far. I'm not alone. Doubling them would result in instant, overnight bankruptcy, with the result that no one gets paid. All economic activity stops. I'd join the millions who pay nothing. It doesn't work.

Increasing taxes short your extreme example of doubling them will result in a reduced manifestation of this phenomenon. Increasing taxes on an activity results in less of it. Always.

What will result in increased tax revenue? It's been done before. It can again. It's the only solution proven to work. Read my original post.

There's that phony superiority thing again.

It's enough that you have some dumb ideas about things do you have to be so full of yourself to? I just thought I'd point out your tactics when posting.



Pay them. It won't be like the poor or middleclass that find it difficult to put food on the table. They'll have their groceries delivered and their accountant will work it into their budget just like before.

Priceless!



You think so huh? We'll see.



You really don't know how the rich operate do you?

Of course there are exceptions but I siad those things about the accountant and groceries to outline that those people making $250,000 or more live quite differently from people who only make say $40,000. MJ while I don't make 250,000 a year myself I know a few who do and if they don't have an accountant at that level they're stupid. At a level much beyond that I'd be very surprised if they do their own shopping. Also I know in the end they'll pay those taxes.

About the " Priceless " and " W'ell See " it's just more bluster.

And I'll bet they won't.

Yes they may have an accountant who will help them wiggle out of part of it.

Otherwise may quote you?

I will be donating more 4 kw sunpower solar power systems to public facilities which will:
a) give my company an advertising value of 50,000 for only a 20,000 investment instantly doubling or even tripling my money
b) help reduce our dependency on foreign energy of any kind.
c) Will keep giving to habitat for humanity, animal shelters, public libraries and such for several decades about 150/month.
d) Will give me fantastic political power in my town and county
e) the tax advantages are ridiculous
f) saves tons of CO2
g) will make me richer
h) will bring energy harvesting close to the user (1 mile under the ocean, put on boat put into pipeline ... insanity!!)

If I pay 300k or 350k in taxes is irrelevant to me, spending $ is more work than the average person would think.

I also can purchase a failing business and keep it going for more write offs.

I do not trust accountants!!!! I have fired 3 of them so far. They are all slimy wankers. I am very good with "numbers" myself and don't need their BS. I do consult with a CPA about tax friendly investments.

YOUR QUESTION SHOULD BE:
HOW DO I PAY MORE TAXES?
Because that involves making more money!!!

Excellent post!

And yes! They are all slimy wankers ( much like attorneys ) but a necessary evil for those not good with doing it themselves.

I'm guessing a lot more of it than you expect. You seem to forget that the rich are richer than you for a reason. They're smarter.



Absolutely.

Thank you for your honesty about your desires and objectives.



Wait a second. I thought you said you wanted to pay more taxes? I swear you said so in a previous post. Possibly in a different thread. Am I mistaken about that? If I'm not what are you doing taking advantage of any "tax advantages" or "write offs" when you could be paying far more taxes if you did not? Are you taking any other deductions for your non-profit donations? Why?



Uh huh.

Well, that makes sense. PR pushing one's supposed altruism is practiced by the oil and ng companies too. If it gets you more in PR than it cost, then its cheaper than running an actual ad. makes sense.

You mean if we ignore the energy used to mine the raw materials, process, manufacture, ship, and store the product for sale? Besides, reducing dependency significantly is impossible and most likely very unwise.

That's nice. I think rich people should give, especially when they are using them as a tool for publcity.

Ahhhh the secret is revealed - POWER, the great attraction to rule others...to COMMAND and issue DECREES for the greater good. Nope no authoritarian attraction to me. Live and let live I say. Pursue conquest over things, not over the souls of men.

Yes they are, and econmically stupid as well.

...yes something like reducing it a microgazzioneth of the total produced each day.

A love of power and money - a dangerious combination in my book.

Uh no. They're just good at making money. That doesn't make them smart. That just makes them good at what they do.

It's only dangerous if you are a Nazi and don't have either.
IT IS A FREE MARKET SYSTEM!

You can out compete me any time.

I showed what I will be doing, what are your plans?

Oh yeah, especially when this is only a one time energy and resource use for the next we don't know years. SInce solar panel seem to be working for 40 + years. Hauling oil around for millions of miles everyday is sooooooooooo much smarter of course. What a great idea!

Unwise. Yeah baby, thank you Mr. Chavez, Mr. Shell, Mr. BP and Bin Laden we love theee.

Yeah, I learned that in church. God is good PR.

They are smart about making and keeping money. They aren't likely to end up paying those taxes.

I think it's more like Wormhole sees it.

And they're smart about making money and keeping money. That doesn't really imply anything else. I don't really think they can escape the entire thing.

Keeping money? Are you crazy, you can never make money if you keep it....????

Well to be honest my wife comes from a wealthy background ( poor when she was little but her dad was good at making money and saving money so they changed that by the time she was a teenager ). She's the most frugal person I know and can squeeze a dollar like it's being put through the wringer. So I guess in that sense they're good at keeping money. I imagine they'll find some loopholes but they won't be able to keep from paying some of their new burden. I as I've said they won't feel it in the same way the other classes do.

I mean keeping it from the government. I think you know that's what I meant.

Actually...it implies they will be able to avoid taxes much more than is expected by our governmental overlords.

So you're saying that they will be able to avoid most of this? I'm sorry but I don't believe that.

Also I was talking with a friend about this and he suggested looking into past tax levels. He said the rich used to pay more so if you go back in historical records you would see this.

You don't have to believe it.



I'm fully aware that the rich were subject to much higher tax rates on their income in the past.