A Complete Waste of Space

callmeslick wrote:it's all just guesswork on our part.

No, Slick the "our" is yours alone. Your words prove? Your'e not very good at it.

Old Pudfark sez: " It's your shoes and your responsibility to check'em....don't blame yer shit on me.... "

I read through "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" stated mission on the their website and a bit of the associated "Aspen Institute"s site. The "Center" is a private organization shilling for Progressive legislation, yay, if that's what you want, but it isn't objective. They didn't 'calculate' anything when it comes to how the Bush Tax Adjustment (my interpretation) would or would not affect the economy, they just have a policy agenda. Ask your buddy Joe Biden, he seems to be a big fan of theirs. There's no analysis there. And the Aspen Institute appears to promote a "Globalist" orientation for leadership training. My point being, Rich's 'research' for his op-ed doesn't bring anything interesting or debatable to the table.

Barfly, the math is easy. The tax cuts cost a half-trillion per year, extending out as far as they continue. And, since the budget isn't balanced, that is borrowed money. What is the challenge here for you coming to understand that? Do you have a plan that will reduce the Federal Budget enough to negate that?

The Federal tax burden is inihibiting private investment, spending, productivity. We're on the bad part of the Laffer curve if you know what that is. Budget control first, then revenue generation. The economy needs to be unburdened from excessive government regulation and taxation to grow. When the economy begins growing at a normal rate, revenue will come in. If we continue to allow the government to hamfistedly intervene in the economy, we're headed for austerity measures.

Barfly wrote:The Federal tax burden is inihibiting private investment, spending, productivity. We're on the bad part of the Laffer curve if you know what that is.

I do, but I disagree. At present investors have the cash, in fact, most of us are swimming in it, but there is no need for corporations to invest, spend or ramp up productivity excessively if the public doesn't have the financial resources to purchase goods and services. At the present, the tax burden isn't the hindrance, although in the area of corporate taxation, some changes might help a bit. For what it's worth, even Laffer views the Curve as an illustrative tool, as opposed to an actual economic given. From a biography of him:"Laffer presented the curve as a pedagogical device to show that, in some circumstances, a reduction in tax rates will actually increase government revenue and not need to be offset by decreased government spending or increased borrowing. For a reduction in tax rates to increase revenue, the current tax rate would need to be higher than the revenue maximizing rate. In 2007, Laffer said that the curve should not be the sole basis for raising or lowering taxes"

Budget control first, then revenue generation. The economy needs to be unburdened from excessive government regulation and taxation to grow.

if that were true, then why were the most productive years of the past 100 occurring when business and especially investment and finance were much more tightly regulated, and the top marginal tax rate was 90%?

When the economy begins growing at a normal rate, revenue will come in. If we continue to allow the government to hamfistedly intervene in the economy, we're headed for austerity measures.

we are headed for austerity measures so long as, for whatever reason, we keep borrowing the equivalent of 20% of our budgeted spending annually.

I don't disagree with the last thing you said lol.

callmeslick wrote:if that were true, then why were the most productive years of the past 100 occurring when business and especially investment and finance were much more tightly regulated, and the top marginal tax rate was 90%?

Slick, you keep mentioning this 90% tax rate....Now, really, how many folks in that "bracket" actually paid 90%? Damn few, if any. Disprove that. Sure, it can be raised again...and the question remains? How many are actually gonna have to pay at that percentage? The answer is the same. Damned few, if any. Sounds good, but the practicality is for shit. Screw the poor folks again.

Try this shoe on for size? Take you last years return. Look at your tax bracket, apply it to your gross income. Do not apply any deductions or other "horse shit"....just use the percentage, see what you "would have owed", look at what you paid...share with us, the real percentage you paid....not the dollar number. Give it a whirl....see what's up.

Old Pudfark sez: " 90% for the rich is pure bull shit....15% flat tax for everybody ain't... "

I'm guessing he's close to the national average for millionaires, about 16%.

I'll have to embarrass my dear old Dad and ask him what bracket he's in. I know he's worth well over a million. I also know his income isn't over a million any more. He's slowed down in his old age.

He DAMN sure doesn't think like slick.

Pudfark wrote:Slick, you keep mentioning this 90% tax rate....Now, really, how many folks in that "bracket" actually paid 90%? Damn few, if any. Disprove that.

why? you provided no factual evidence to disprove.

Try this shoe on for size? Take you last years return. Look at your tax bracket, apply it to your gross income. Do not apply any deductions or other "horse shit"....just use the percentage, see what you "would have owed", look at what you paid...share with us, the real percentage you paid....not the dollar number. Give it a whirl....see what's up.

lets see.....without giving details, it breaks down like this:

Taxable income from salaries and pensions--rate looks like 28%, but after deductions, around 14% of gross.
Dividends and other cap gains--15%, but down to 13% or so, because I could claim money that was a cap
loss from 3 years back. Business income, I don't have the exact rate on, but considerable writeoffs due to
environmental easements drop it quite a bit.

Old Pudfark sez: " 90% for the rich is pure bull shit....15% flat tax for everybody ain't... "

[/quote]

I agree with you, actually, Pud. The flat tax, with a fair exemption would be better than the mess we currently have. Anyone except accountants ought to agree on that. What happened when the top marginal rate was in force(and I've never seen anything to suggest it wasn't complied with) was that top-tier earners sought compensation in the form of long-term accruing assets(stock options, for a major example) The effect upon the economy was to force the business leadership to think longer-term, purely out of self-interest. Where this benefitted everyone was the development of an economic engine that grew and ramped up pay and benefits.