Why the 1% should pay tax at 80%

[Ibanez]

I guess you haven't seen it first hand? Mrs89 worked for the Feds for 14 years. The amount of waste, red tape, employees who do nothing is incomprehensible.

This ^

The military has this problem as well
My father was in the Army for 20 years and frequently pointed out that 50% of the military does NOTHING
and he wasn't being sarcastic... quite literally ZERO productivity from 1/2

People are dumb and think everyone in the military fights. Less than 10% of the military participates in combat roles.


The DoD can be drastically reduced, but that won't solve any problem.

[Chizzang]

This ^

The military has this problem as well
My father was in the Army for 20 years and frequently pointed out that 50% of the military does NOTHING
and he wasn't being sarcastic... quite literally ZERO productivity from 1/2

People are dumb and think everyone in the military fights. Less than 10% of the military participates in combat roles.


The DoD can be drastically reduced, but that won't solve any problem.

$940 Billions Dollars scheduled for 2014 Defense Budget
That's $3,000 from every living breathing human being in the United States a year



Ah... but there are only 225 million adults
meaning we each pay $4,200 for our military

and now figure that because a huge percentage of Americans pay no income tax
that number goes up probably close to $5,500 each

WOW!!!

[AZGrizFan]

People are dumb and think everyone in the military fights. Less than 10% of the military participates in combat roles.


The DoD can be drastically reduced, but that won't solve any problem.

$940 Billions Dollars scheduled for 2014 Defense Budget
That's $3,000 from every living breathing human being in the United States a year



Ah... but there are only 225 million adults
meaning we each pay $4,200 for our military

and now figure that because a huge percentage of Americans pay no income tax
that number goes up probably close to $5,500 each

WOW!!!

$2.1 TRILLION dollars scheduled for the 2014 Entitlements budget. That's almost $10,000 for every adult, or $20,000 for each tax-paying adult. You tell ME where the "bloat" is.

I would FULLY support cutting the military budget by 50%. IF, and ONLY if, we also cut everything ELSE. Making one facet of our spending problem the scapegoat isn't going to solve anything.

[Chizzang]

$940 Billions Dollars scheduled for 2014 Defense Budget
That's $3,000 from every living breathing human being in the United States a year



Ah... but there are only 225 million adults
meaning we each pay $4,200 for our military

and now figure that because a huge percentage of Americans pay no income tax
that number goes up probably close to $5,500 each

WOW!!!

$2.1 TRILLION dollars scheduled for the 2014 Entitlements budget. That's almost $10,000 for every adult, or $20,000 for each tax-paying adult. You tell ME where the "bloat" is.

I would FULLY support cutting the military budget by 50%. IF, and ONLY if, we also cut everything ELSE. Making one facet of our spending problem the scapegoat isn't going to solve anything.

I completely agree..!!!
I believe we should FAVOR NOTHING and hack 20% spending across the board
all programs all departments all expenditures take a 20% haircut

[kalm]

$2.1 TRILLION dollars scheduled for the 2014 Entitlements budget. That's almost $10,000 for every adult, or $20,000 for each tax-paying adult. You tell ME where the "bloat" is.

I would FULLY support cutting the military budget by 50%. IF, and ONLY if, we also cut everything ELSE. Making one facet of our spending problem the scapegoat isn't going to solve anything.

I completely agree..!!!
I believe we should FAVOR NOTHING and hack 20% spending across the board
all programs all departments all expenditures take a 20% haircut

I hate to break this to ya...but you wanna talk depressions?

[D1B]

I completely agree..!!!
I believe we should FAVOR NOTHING and hack 20% spending across the board
all programs all departments all expenditures take a 20% haircut

I hate to break this to ya...but you wanna talk depressions?

Conks are like hyperactive children or large mouth bass. They don't think, they just react at anything.

They don't have patience or poise which is why they are the problem, ultimately.

[89Hen]

I hate to break this to ya...but you wanna talk depressions?

Conks are like hyperactive children or large mouth bass. They don't think, they just react at anything.

They don't have patience or poise which is why they are the problem, ultimately.

The irony of this post is quite amusing. A completely out of the blue comment by parrot1B. BRAWK! Do you have any control over what you say?

[DSUrocks07]

I completely agree..!!!
I believe we should FAVOR NOTHING and hack 20% spending across the board
all programs all departments all expenditures take a 20% haircut

I hate to break this to ya...but you wanna talk depressions?

Then all we have is an artificially inflated economy and there is no hope for anything to change outside if the dollar collapsing completely and a revolution.

Cutting only the things that donks want to cut yet leaving every entitlement program untouched still isn't going to get past your "you wanna talk about depressions" comment. And same goes for the other side as well.

You try to piecemeal it and play favorites, it will end up far worse than across the board cuts.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I hate to break this to ya...but you wanna talk depressions?

Then all we have is an artificially inflated economy and there is no hope for anything to change outside if the dollar collapsing completely and a revolution.

Cutting only the things that donks want to cut yet leaving every entitlement program untouched still isn't going to get past your "you wanna talk about depressions" comment. And same goes for the other side as well.

You try to piecemeal it and play favorites, it will end up far worse than across the board cuts.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

I actually like concept of across the board cuts, but I'm trying to be realistic. Yes, our economy is DEEPLY entwined with government spending and across the board cuts of 20% would have a massive impact.

Quit hating...

[AZGrizFan]

Then all we have is an artificially inflated economy and there is no hope for anything to change outside if the dollar collapsing completely and a revolution.

Cutting only the things that donks want to cut yet leaving every entitlement program untouched still isn't going to get past your "you wanna talk about depressions" comment. And same goes for the other side as well.

You try to piecemeal it and play favorites, it will end up far worse than across the board cuts.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

I actually like concept of across the board cuts, but I'm trying to be realistic. Yes, our economy is DEEPLY entwined with government spending and across the board cuts of 20% would have a massive impact.

Quit hating...

Time for a "reset". Time to get off the government nipple.

[Grizalltheway]

I actually like concept of across the board cuts, but I'm trying to be realistic. Yes, our economy is DEEPLY entwined with government spending and across the board cuts of 20% would have a massive impact.

Quit hating...

Time for a "reset". Time to get off the government nipple.

Fine by me. But, it's something that needs to be gradually unless, like kalm suggested, you want to see an economic meltdown that makes the last one look like a small bump in the road.

[D1B]

Conks are like hyperactive children or large mouth bass. They don't think, they just react at anything.

They don't have patience or poise which is why they are the problem, ultimately.

The irony of this post is quite amusing. A completely out of the blue comment by parrot1B. BRAWK! Do you have any control over what you say?

Fuck you, pompous ass know it all.

[kalm]

The irony of this post is quite amusing. A completely out of the blue comment by parrot1B. BRAWK! Do you have any control over what you say?

Fuck you, pompous ass know it all.

'Meh...just cut 20% across the board...problem solved!'

Conks are deciders.

[Chizzang]

Lets' not all sit around and pretend cutting 20% is ever going to happen / because it isn't
Our Federal Government isn't capable

We are going to do what we've ALWAYS done
Spend more and get bigger and less effective and more convoluted

The End

[CID1990]

BRAWK!!

rofl

[AZGrizFan]

Time for a "reset". Time to get off the government nipple.

Fine by me. But, it's something that needs to be gradually unless, like kalm suggested, you want to see an economic meltdown that makes the last one look like a small bump in the road.

That's why it's called a "reset", Junior.

[Grizalltheway]

Fine by me. But, it's something that needs to be gradually unless, like kalm suggested, you want to see an economic meltdown that makes the last one look like a small bump in the road.

That's why it's called a "reset", Junior.

Uhh, reset generally implies something done quickly, i.e. a 'reset' button, gramps.

[CID1990]

That's why it's called a "reset", Junior.

Uhh, reset generally implies something done quickly, i.e. a 'reset' button, gramps.

Actually "reset" refers to the misspelled button that Clinton gave to the Russian foreign minister.

[Grizalltheway]

Uhh, reset generally implies something done quickly, i.e. a 'reset' button, gramps.

Actually "reset" refers to the misspelled button that Clinton gave to the Russian foreign minister.

Touché.

[AZGrizFan]

That's why it's called a "reset", Junior.

Uhh, reset generally implies something done quickly, i.e. a 'reset' button, gramps.

Oh, if we cut across the board 20%, the economic reset would happen quickly...

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

We do not have a taxation issue in this country
Yes there are a few key loopholes that must be fixed that are designed to hide money

But generally speaking Taxes are NOT the problem
We have a Federal Government that cannot function on 2.7 trillion dollars
How the **** is that possible

It's broken beyond belief
and TAXES ain't the problem
Taxes is simply a clever diversion from the actual problem

I'm not even going to read the rest of this thread.

This here.

Every gov agency and program can be 'trimmed'.

Over-spending is the problem.

[houndawg]

Gross over-simplification (even for me )

You're assuming that those on the Forbes 400 list or the corporations who bare WAY less of the tax burden than they use to also don't benefit from government spending.

We have had low taxes now for 30 years and many of the same people bitching about spending are benefiting from that spending.

It would be interesting to compare historical effective tax rates and revenue vs. increases in spending. Spending needs to be cut for sure, but raising taxes for the sake of fiscal responsibility might help too.

Taxes were fine back prior to 2000, remember when the national debt was decreasing to the point where they covered up that "debt clock"? But now "progressives" are wanting to go back to the 1950s tax code....but only for the rich tho.

Also, HI5 was referring to the combined net worth of those on the Forbes 400, would that be enough to cover this year's expenses ($3.8 trillion), that some here believe STILL isn't enough government spending.

Yes, we remember the prosperity and fiscal responsibility of the Clinton administration. Just before the country was robbed and left for dead by the side of the road.

[JohnStOnge]

I've posted the data on what I'm about to write before and if y'all want I can do it again or you can take my word for it. In the United States, the general trend since the 1970s as been towards the government collecting substantially more per capita in Federal taxes. I'm talking about in absolute terms. Government gets way more per person or per household now in inflation adjusted terms than it did in 1979. WAY more. The problem has not been a decline in how much tax the Federal government is collecting relative to the size of the population it is serving. That has increased substantially. The problem is that the amount of money it's SPENDING per capita has increased even more substantially.

I suppose they can increase the top marginal rate to a point and get somewhat more revenue. But at some point that would be counterproductive. Anyone should be able to see intuitively that the Laffer Curve concept is valid. If you set the top marginal rate at 100% most people aren't going to bother to make money beyond income below that which would be subject to the top marginal rate. I think it's pretty obvious that if you set the top marginal rate at 20% you'll get a lot more tax revenue than you would if you set it at 100% because people will see it as worth their while to make money beyond the level where the top marginal rate kicks in.

Somewhere between 20% and 100% is a point where revenue would be maximized. And a reasonable person has to wonder whether or not 80% is beyond that point. In any case at some point governments are not going to be able to solve the problem of continuing to increase per capita spending by goring the rich more. The long term solution is to change the paradigm with respect to what government is responsible for and reduce spending. It's cliche but it's true: We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Increasing revenue, to the extent that that's possible through increasing top marginal rates, will only result in government spending even more beyond what it's taking in. We have plenty of experience to tell us that increasing revenue is associated with government increasing spending beyond that which can be supported by the increase in revenue.

[kalm]

I've posted the data on what I'm about to write before and if y'all want I can do it again or you can take my word for it. In the United States, the general trend since the 1970s as been towards the government collecting substantially more per capita in Federal taxes. I'm talking about in absolute terms. Government gets way more per person or per household now in inflation adjusted terms than it did in 1979. WAY more. The problem has not been a decline in how much tax the Federal government is collecting relative to the size of the population it is serving. That has increased substantially. The problem is that the amount of money it's SPENDING per capita has increased even more substantially.

I suppose they can increase the top marginal rate to a point and get somewhat more revenue. But at some point that would be counterproductive. Anyone should be able to see intuitively that the Laffer Curve concept is valid. If you set the top marginal rate at 100% most people aren't going to bother to make money beyond income below that which would be subject to the top marginal rate. I think it's pretty obvious that if you set the top marginal rate at 20% you'll get a lot more tax revenue than you would if you set it at 100% because people will see it as worth their while to make money beyond the level where the top marginal rate kicks in.

Somewhere between 20% and 100% is a point where revenue would be maximized. And a reasonable person has to wonder whether or not 80% is beyond that point. In any case at some point governments are not going to be able to solve the problem of continuing to increase per capita spending by goring the rich more. The long term solution is to change the paradigm with respect to what government is responsible for and reduce spending. It's cliche but it's true: We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Increasing revenue, to the extent that that's possible through increasing top marginal rates, will only result in government spending even more beyond what it's taking in. We have plenty of experience to tell us that increasing revenue is associated with government increasing spending beyond that which can be supported by the increase in revenue.

Post the data.

[JohnStOnge]

Post the data.

Ok. The easiest thing for me to do is post a letter to the editor I wrote about a year ago. The data cover 1979 through 2005 because I could not find a GAO document that had all that I needed to do all the breakdowns that extended through later than 2005. And per capita revenue as well as per capita spending may have declined SOME since 2005. But the overall trend 1979 through present will still be positive. Over the long term you can see what's been happening.

Here's the text of the letter:

What has happened to this country financially? Politicians increased spending over time to support programs currying favor with voters while using “progressive” taxation to ensure that most voters didn’t experience increased cost.

Numbers in this letter were derived from the CBO letter on 1979 through 2005 tax burdens at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884 ... Letter.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and the table of US population estimates at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/census.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Numbers not directly reported in those documents (i.e., calculated numbers) are reported to three significant figures. “Taxes” are all federal taxes; not just income taxes. Dollar figures are in inflation adjusted terms (2005 dollars).

In 1979 the US government spent $5,750 per capita and $15,900 per household (2005 dollars). By 2005 it spent $8,340 per capita and $21,600 per household. So there was a substantial increase.

How was that increase at least partially funded? Government collected $4,790 in taxes per capita and $13,350 per household in 1979 (2005 dollars) vs. $6,710 per capita and $17,400 per household in 2005. So, on average, taxes paid per unit population and/or household increased substantially. But they didn’t increase for most people. For most people, they decreased.

Let’s define households holding US persons in the lowest 20 percent of income earners as the “lower class,” those holding persons in the middle 60 percent of income earners as the “middle class,” and those holding persons in the upper 20 percent of income earners as the “upper class.”

In 1979, those in the upper class paid 56.4 percent of all federal taxes. In 2005, they paid 68.8 percent. Their average household tax liability, in 2005 dollars, went from $59,700 to $84,800. Meanwhile, the average household tax liability of the lower class declined, in 2005 dollars, from $1,250 to $684 while that of the middle class declined from $9,620 to $9,020.

And the average household tax liabilities of the lower and middle classes didn’t decline because their household incomes declined. The average household income of the lower class, in 2005 dollars, went from $15,700 in 1979 to $15,900 in 2005 while that of the middle class went from $51,200 to $60,600.
The upper class average household income increased even more. It went from $129,000 in 2005 dollars in 1979 to $223,000 in 2005. But that’s not the point.

The point is that it’s easy to support increases in government spending when you’re not paying for them. The majority of people in this country haven’t been asked to fund the increases and that’s not a good thing. If you can get lots of candy without having to pay for it, you’re going to want lots of candy because you have no appreciation for what it costs to buy it. Sooner or later that’s going to cause problems.