[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
That would be relevant, if I were looking for solutions within the framwork of capitalism.[/quote]
Also, I’d like to know what it is about capitalism that you obviously do not like?
[/quote]
To avoid derailing the thread too much, check your inbox (my message may not be there immediately, however).
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I am not a fan of a flat tax, I favor a graduated income tax in agreement with Adam Smith.
[/quote]
[quote]
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[/quote]
I think the incredibly low food prices that were brought about by freed markets basically fix the problem of the poor eating. His argument was that the poor spend a greater degree of their income on food (the only truly scarce necessity, as water and air are basically free). While this might still be true, in his time the poor probably spent many many many many many times the portion of their income on food that they do today.
Also, I’m pretty sure he’s talking about property taxes, NOT an income tax.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I am not a fan of a flat tax, I favor a graduated income tax in agreement with Adam Smith.
[/quote]
[quote]
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[/quote]
I think the incredibly low food prices that were brought about by freed markets basically fix the problem of the poor eating. His argument was that the poor spend a greater degree of their income on food (the only truly scarce necessity, as water and air are basically free). While this might still be true, in his time the poor probably spent many many many many many times the portion of their income on food that they do today.
Also, I’m pretty sure he’s talking about property taxes, NOT an income tax.[/quote]
There are over 200 counties in the United States in which 50% or more of the population is on food stamps. The recent rise in food prices have been fairly widely noticed, as have the increased demands on food banks.
And I don’t care type of tax he’s referring to, I’m giving you my opinion, not trying to interpret which type of tax he preferred. The general sentiment is what I was agreeing with.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
food (the only truly scarce necessity, as water and air are basically free).
[/quote]
???
Water is an essential resource for life and good health. [u]A lack of water to meet daily needs is a reality today for one in three people around the world.
Globally, the problem is getting worse [/u] as cities and populations grow, and the needs for water increase in agriculture, industry and households.
10 facts about water scarcity: http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/water/en/index.html
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100201/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes
Remeber this?
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
How’s that Hope’n’Change working out for ya?[/quote]
I will be responding to the tax hike as probably most Americans. My family and I will be purchasing less goods and services to make up for the loss in taxes. I also own a small business and instead of hiring that extra employee I will be doing the work myself.
That Obama and his team can’t see that this will harm the economy is beyond me, but then again at this point nothing that he does surprises me anymore, the man is clueless.
my conclusion is he (they) are doing it on purpose, the reason which we will all find out soon enough. Can’t come up with any other explanation.
A part that is especially destructive is that time seems to have pretty well demonstrated that taxation is within a fairly flat part of the Laffer curve.
What this means is that increase in rate, while punishing to income earners and damaging to the total production of the economy, will at most increase revenues only quite slightly or may yield no change or even a decrease in revenue.
Yet Obama is all hot for such hikes.
The above graph should be informative.
As the CBO says regarding this data, there is no obvious trend. Regardless that taxation has been at quite a variety of rates over this period, including quite punishingly high rates.
Yet it cannot be said that even a higher percentage of GDP was obtained during those times, yet it is known that GDP suffers a reduction or a reduction in growth from such higher rates.
(One thing that can be noted is that during bubbles in the economy, there are increases seen in percent of GDP collected as revenue and vice-versa during recessions: the reason for this I believe is that during bubbles a higher percentage of production is taxable income, while in recessions the total of taxable income drops moreso than does GDP: thus percent collected relative to GDP drops.)
So what kind of character and/or intent does it to take to be bent on raising tax rates when 55 years of US data – and there is much more than the above – shows that it can’t be expected to help much if any for government revenue?
You would be too if you had every republican (and many democrats) in Congress constantly hounding you about a debt which is mostly not your fault.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You would be too if you had every republican (and many democrats) in Congress constantly hounding you about a debt which is mostly not your fault.
[/quote]
There is only some truth to your assertion. Yes, he’s being hounded but he’s responding wrongly. What he should do is widen the tax base by offering up tax breaks to all business that buys machinery, property and expands their payroll. The more people paying taxes the more funds there are available to pay down debt. The more business makes the more taxes that they pay at a reasonable rate.
In essence he’s doing the exact opposite of what should be done. This will extend or deepen our current recession.
It appears Mr MrCarter doesn’t grasp that higher tax rates don’t necessarily produce more revenue.
As to whether Obama would hike tax rates even if knowing that this would reduce revenue, yes he would.
I say this because during the campaign Charlie Gibson asked him a question which was very explicit on this. Gibson explained that it’s been shown that higher capital gains tax rates reduce revenue. He asked Obama why increase the rate when this will produce less revenue?
What was Obama’s response? Disagreement that it would reduce revenue?
No.
Obama would do it despite reducing revenue because it would be “more fair.”
Thank you for saying it Bill. Higher taxes can be used to feed the spending beast, which is exactly what this will be. We must slay the spending beast, unplug the machine, or at bare minimum reduce it.
Btw another thing that can and I think should be picked up from the graph is that history shows that it is unrealistic to expect government revenue average to average better than 18% of GDP. This is the case regardless of the mix and the rates of taxes.
Whenever collection has been better than this by even a fairly small added percentage – the highest percentage achieved even briefly is 20.9% – this is followed by a period of falling below 18%-of-GDP collection of revenue.
Therefore, if as should be the case wishing to average a balanced budget, the target for federal spending should be no higher than 18% GDP.
Obama’s 10 year plan is of course well beyond this.
The progressive, Keynesian-type of solution has never worked and never will, because it’s stupid.
I knew taxes were going up on Nov. 5 2009. I’ve already bent over and grabbed my ankles so I am ready for penetration.
It is also predictable that expectation of higher taxes has harmed the economy ever since that expectation went into place.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You would be too if you had every republican (and many democrats) in Congress constantly hounding you about a debt which is mostly not your fault.
[/quote]
There is only some truth to your assertion. Yes, he’s being hounded but he’s responding wrongly. What he should do is widen the tax base by offering up tax breaks to all business that buys machinery, property and expands their payroll. The more people paying taxes the more funds there are available to pay down debt. The more business makes the more taxes that they pay at a reasonable rate.
In essence he’s doing the exact opposite of what should be done. This will extend or deepen our current recession.
[/quote]
THIS.
Not directly a result of taxes, but dealing with public expenditures. The US and Britain have experienced in the last decade far more growth in public sector pay and benefits compared to the private sector. If that isnt a tell tale sign of lunacy and the crowding out effect I dont know what is. Case in point. One of the jobs I interviewed for was for the GSA. Starting pay 48k. The way the pay scale was structured was you pretty much are garunteed to be at about 75-80k after 4-5 years. Compared to similar jobs in my field in the private sector thats earning potential eclipsed all but the most competitive private sector positions. This also does not even consider the generous pensions.
As a result the private sector growth and efficiency will wane, and then taxes will be raised higher to compensate for the government jobs that are lavishly paid… Not to mention it will be similar to the UAW pension fiasco when those come due. Just some things to think about
I’m pretty sure he’s doing this (proposing it, at any rate). Check to make sure, though. I know for a fact he proposed eliminating capital gains on qualified small business stocks, though I don’t know what’s become of it.
[quote]pat wrote:
The progressive, Keynesian-type of solution has never worked and never will, because it’s stupid.
I knew taxes were going up on Nov. 5 2009. I’ve already bent over and grabbed my ankles so I am ready for penetration.[/quote]
Don’t you mean Kenyan?
The Keynesian-type of solution has never worked, except here during the Depression, in Germany during the Depression, in China as we speak, and even here right now to some extent.
Guys, theory is great, but occasionally you have to look at the real world.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The Keynesian-type of solution has never worked, except here during the Depression, in Germany during the Depression, in China as we speak, and even here right now to some extent.
Guys, theory is great, but occasionally you have to look at the real world.[/quote]
Ryan,
Lets try something a little different. Instead of asking for proof against your stated claim, how about this time you cite some reference material to support yours. After all, there are no end of Keynesian supporters that you could reference. Then others can debate you from your home field advantage.