isadore;1329976 wrote:Gosh a ruddies what do we see over the last three decades? We cut taxes and get ever increasing deficits. Then Clinton raises taxes on the rich and we get a surplus. Then Bush tax cuts plunge us deeper into the whole. But of course the acolytes for the rich and haters of our First African American president will always oppose the taxes needed.

WebFire;1330036 wrote:Yeah, taxes were the only factors. gosh a ruddies :rolleyes:

isadore;1330045 wrote:gosh a ruddies what have we seen for the last thirty plus years, cut taxes on rich debt rises, raise taxes on the rich it falls. But of course some people's hearts just bleed for the suffering of the 1%.

WebFire;1330049 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, it's so easy, a caveman can do it!

pmoney25;1330052 wrote:Clinton did cut taxes on the rich who made money on capital gains. Bush just followed his lead.

isadore;1330098 wrote:the personal income tax rates were up on the rich

isadore;1330117 wrote:what we see is the doubling of tax revenue because of the raise in tax rates on the rich.

gut;1330304 wrote:Spending increases have far outpaced GDP growth. You're not seeing the whole picture. We have a spending problem - historically we've collected right @18.2% of GDP. Obama proposing 25% of GDP spending into perpetuity is a permanent $1T+ shortfall. There is no way to get there without increase FICA and implmenting a VAT - steep taxes on the poor and middle class.

The problem isn't that rich people don't pay enough taxes, it's that we don't have enough rich people.

isadore;1330316 wrote:tax cuts to the rich have pushed us into this hole. how about we
increase personal income tax on top brackets, tax capital gains at same rate as personal income tax,
and for social security end the ceiling on collecting fica taxes on income. gosh a ruddies now there is a start.

gut;1330343 wrote:A). They've done and tried just about everything with personal income taxes. Yet they still pretty consistently collect only about 18.2% of GDP. The reason is you can't force people to realize deferred income. The reason Bush's cut on the capital gains to 15% generated a **** ton of revenue was because wealthy people started taking money out of their company that was just sitting in retained earnings - those distributions and dividends skyrocketed.

B) Social insurance is supposed to mean everyone pays. The reason for the cap is because that far exceeds what would be returned under the system. No, the solution is to increase the FICA rate - Europe's equivalent is a full 50% higher than we pay here. The reason Medicare is in so much trouble is because the expense is actually greater than SS, but if you look at FICA we only collect 1/5 the amount for Medicare that we do for SS.

You can't tax your way out of spending problem. We've been proving that for nearly 30 years. Perhaps the solution is LOWER rates and elimination of loopholes (i.e. simpler) and make it permanent. If you eliminate the potential for future tax increases, as well as cuts, then you remove the incentive to game things by deferring income. That is basically the cyclical nature of how things have been working and why tax cuts work in the first place - increase taxes for a bit, and the deferred builds up so then you lower taxes to untrap those revenues. Wash, rinse and repeat.

gut wrote: You can't tax your way out of spending problem.We've been proving that for nearly 30 years

isadore;1330462 wrote:What a joke that capital gains tax rate is a temporary pumpas the greedy rich jump on it then a sharp decline because of the lowrates.

. Thirty years ago when Reagan was elected national debt was 1/3gdp. Then we started cutting taxes forthe rich and now we see the result.

gut;1330571 wrote:You are just so very, very ignorant. We have a spending problem. Like I said, go take a look at how spending has grown relative to GDP - revenues have been fairly flat @ 18.2% (read: revenues have kept pace with GDP growth). Spending is what has gotten out of control.

As for capital gains, you need to learn and understand what double and triple taxation means. Those cap gains are already taxed up to 35% at the corporate level, plus that investment was already taxed once when it was originally earned as ordinary income. The real implicit rate of taxation on capital gains is north of 50%. When you punish the rate of return on investment, you slaughter growth and that will only further hurt revenues.

Social insurance means everyone contributes. Everyone. We have expanded and added social insurance programs and failed at sticking the rich with the bill (which isn't a realistic or practical goal, anyway).

tk421;1330593 wrote:there's no reason to try and argue with him, he won't accept the truth. Obama can do no wrong and there isn't a problem. People like that will not ever accept the truth, no matter how many facts you present. You're wasting your breath.

isadore;1330604 wrote:Our problem is with taxing not spending.

WebFire;1330670 wrote:Yeah, there is no problem at all with spending. LOL :rolleyes:

gut;1330679 wrote:Which is why the Repubs should give Obama his lame tax increases and then with the economy still in the ****ter and $1T+ deficits drop the hammer with the "told you so".

When Obama tries to pretend a $100-200B tax increase on the rich will make much of a dent in the deficit I want to say "how stupid does Obama think people are?" But, of course, Obama doesn't think people are stupid he knows it. Hell, it had to be true or he never would have gotten re-elected.

gut;1330679 wrote:But, of course, Obama doesn't think people are stupid he knows it.

gut;1330679 wrote:Hell, it had to be true or he never would have gotten re-elected.