Republican Play - Offs
-
BoatShoes
Despite generally slow GDP incomes have been rising rapidly for most well off since the 197p's and we are long past the time to follow Mr. Eccles' advice as the poor and middle class no longwr have the purchasing power to sustain broadly shared gdp growth.jmog;1753600 wrote:Did you see the point you highlighted about "when national income is at a high and rapidly advancing rate"?
If not, please read again. Can you please point out when, in the last say 8 years, the national income has been at a high and rapidly advancing rate?
If not, then according to the guy you quoted, it doesn't make sense to increase taxes, but yet we have.
Easiest thing to do would be to cut taxes on the poor and middle class. I recommend a full payroll tax holiday for both employers and employees. -
jmog
Hard to cut taxes for the poor when they don't pay any federal taxes anyway. Matter of fact, the real poor have a negative tax rate once credits are factored in. So, how do you plan on "cutting" taxes on the poor? Or do you really me just more credits so that their negative tax rate gets even larger?BoatShoes;1753685 wrote:Despite generally slow GDP incomes have been rising rapidly for most well off since the 197p's and we are long past the time to follow Mr. Eccles' advice as the poor and middle class no longwr have the purchasing power to sustain broadly shared gdp growth.
Easiest thing to do would be to cut taxes on the poor and middle class. I recommend a full payroll tax holiday for both employers and employees.
I am all for cutting taxes on the middle class, you are starting to sound like a conservative there Boat, cutting taxes on the middle class (of course, I think your's and my definition of middle class maybe different).
Also, the link/quote you provided does NOT say that it would be appropriate to increase taxes when only the rich are "rapidly gaining", it states that when the whole COUNTRY is rapidly gaining.
He also stated the increase would work only if you use it to BROADEN THE TAX BASE, which means get more tax payers. That is the exact opposite of the left wing ideas right now, you can't possibly add more tax payers without taxing the "poor" below the about 49% income percentile level. -
HitsRus
Trump comes out today and says no taxes on joint incomes of $50K or less.
http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-unveil-tax-plan-monday-074333450--finance.html -
QuakerOats
Yes, I hate retired people, disabled people and those unemployed due to businesses being shuttered from high taxation and over-regulation ............ oh, and veterans too.BoatShoes;1753103 wrote:"Handouts" the least well off will create the customer base for the "producers" like Barney Kroger to sell their company's output to. But because since people such as you have so much disdain for your fellow citizens that benefit from these gdp-supporting programs like retired citizens, folks on disability and the unemployed we should have the gubmint appoint a board of experienced entrepreneurs and business men to allocate funds to other entrepreneurs to hire the poor and unemployed in productive endeavors instead.
Other than that, you continue to simply want government to divide the pie the way liberals say it should be divided, whereas we want to grow the pie so that everyone can participate and share in the benefits of a growing economy. Right now, BIG government is our biggest impediment to growth. -
BoatShoes
The working poor all pay the regressive payroll taxes which are tremendous burdens on employers and the middle class as well. I have no problem with negative tax rates on working people. Indeed, Milton Friedman endorsed the idea and it almost got passed under Nixon. Vastly superior to programs like TANF and would be better than a minimum wage.jmog;1753689 wrote:Hard to cut taxes for the poor when they don't pay any federal taxes anyway. Matter of fact, the real poor have a negative tax rate once credits are factored in. So, how do you plan on "cutting" taxes on the poor? Or do you really me just more credits so that their negative tax rate gets even larger? -
BoatShoes
Not bad! Personally however I think the expensing of capital expenditures has to happen though which his plan does not include unlike, say, Rubio's.HitsRus;1753693 wrote:Trump comes out today and says no taxes on joint incomes of $50K or less.
http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-unveil-tax-plan-monday-074333450--finance.html -
jmog
The working poor pay 0% or less (negative %) on federal income tax.BoatShoes;1753710 wrote:The working poor all pay the regressive payroll taxes which are tremendous burdens on employers and the middle class as well. I have no problem with negative tax rates on working people. Indeed, Milton Friedman endorsed the idea and it almost got passed under Nixon. Vastly superior to programs like TANF and would be better than a minimum wage.
The working poor pay SS and Medicare tax that are NOT regressive. They are flat taxes for the most part.
Just because you say something is true to make it sound bad, doesn't make it true. SS and Medicare are not regressive. The working poor, are still paying far less in total federal "taxes" (income, medicare, ss, etc) than the middle class, upper middle class, rich, even the elite rich. The elite rich are only paying a smaller amount than the regular rich, they are still paying higher than everyone else. -
HitsRus
The working poor all pay the regressive payroll taxes which are tremendous burdens on employers and the middle class as well
You are basically funding the most expensive and most necessary of all entitlement programs, and the working poor, and the middle class are the ones deriving the most benefit from it. I would like to see some additional funding for SSI and medicare from other sources. -
cruiser_96
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to QuakerOats again. -
BoatShoes
I know the poor pay 0% or negative federal income tax rates. I am perfectly fine with that and believe it to be the right way to go i.e. cutting payroll taxes.jmog;1753723 wrote:The working poor pay 0% or less (negative %) on federal income tax.
The working poor pay SS and Medicare tax that are NOT regressive. They are flat taxes for the most part.
Just because you say something is true to make it sound bad, doesn't make it true. SS and Medicare are not regressive. The working poor, are still paying far less in total federal "taxes" (income, medicare, ss, etc) than the middle class, upper middle class, rich, even the elite rich. The elite rich are only paying a smaller amount than the regular rich, they are still paying higher than everyone else.
Social Security and Medicare are both regressive as they are capped. Indeed they are regressive by definition because the rate is reduced as the tax base increases.
I am fine with the poor paying even less because their consumption has greater marginal utility than the consumption of the most well off. -
jmog
You keep saying "pay less", but in reality they aren't paying. So instead of using "PC speak" and talking about giving the poor a "tax break" why don't you just call it like it is. You want to hand them more free money?BoatShoes;1753745 wrote:I know the poor pay 0% or negative federal income tax rates. I am perfectly fine with that and believe it to be the right way to go i.e. cutting payroll taxes.
Social Security and Medicare are both regressive as they are capped. Indeed they are regressive by definition because the rate is reduced as the tax base increases.
I am fine with the poor paying even less because their consumption has greater marginal utility than the consumption of the most well off.
When they already have a 0 or negative effective rate, the "tax breaks" are really credits that just mean their negative effective rate will be even a higher negative % (meaning they are getting even MORE back than they actually paid in).
Just be honest about it, call it a hand out rather than a "tax break". -
BoatShoes
Fear mongering over social security is what defrauds the public into accepting onerously high payroll tax burdens. As Alan Greenspan told Paul Ryan - there is nothing to stop Uncle Sam from giving poor old people money when they can no longer work. The question is how to set up a system where there will be enough doctors, nursing homes, country kitchen buffets, etc. to satisfy that demand. The exact opposite way is to tax the labor of the working people who will supply the goods and services to satiate that demand.HitsRus;1753732 wrote:You are basically funding the most expensive and most necessary of all entitlement programs, and the working poor, and the middle class are the ones deriving the most benefit from it. I would like to see some additional funding for SSI and medicare from other sources.
In any case, someone such as yourself who believes (or is at least familiar with) in the technological singularity ought to recognize that social security is basically already obsolete for babies being born today who will never retire. -
BoatShoes
Eccles writings are clear that he means when a portion of the population - the most well off - accumulate so much of GDP that more broad-based consumption falters and wealth is left chasing consumption with little value or undproductive asset speculation. Also, in his time "broaden the base" simply meant increase taxes. Tax reformers adopted that phraseology in the 80's as a nice way of saying "increase taxes on poorer people" after the soak the rich years of the New Deal era.jmog;1753689 wrote:
Also, the link/quote you provided does NOT say that it would be appropriate to increase taxes when only the rich are "rapidly gaining", it states that when the whole COUNTRY is rapidly gaining.
He also stated the increase would work only if you use it to BROADEN THE TAX BASE, which means get more tax payers. That is the exact opposite of the left wing ideas right now, you can't possibly add more tax payers without taxing the "poor" below the about 49% income percentile level. -
QuakerOats
Medicare taxes are not capped.BoatShoes;1753745 wrote:I know the poor pay 0% or negative federal income tax rates. I am perfectly fine with that and believe it to be the right way to go i.e. cutting payroll taxes.
Social Security and Medicare are both regressive as they are capped. Indeed they are regressive by definition because the rate is reduced as the tax base increases.
I am fine with the poor paying even less because their consumption has greater marginal utility than the consumption of the most well off.
There is nothing regressive with the taxes, and frankly it is supposed to be money set aside in a trust fund for retirement benefits; i.e. savings, not taxes. The problem though, is that BIG government has stolen the money from the 'trust', wasted it on federal spending binges, and then scare taxpayers with threats that the fund will run dry. This is incredibly nefarious, especially when you consider what would happen to an employer sponsored pension plan if the employer took the funds that were contributed to a pension plan's trust, replaced them with IOU's, and then spent the funds on other corporate expenses. The full weight of BIG government in the form of ERISA would come crashing down on that company and send people to jail. Oh, the irony of it all.
Liberals and their BIG government are ruinous to humanity. -
cruiser_96
Amen!
-
HitsRus
You still have to finance the system (or something like it) for 30 more years, even if it is only(wink, wink) a pay as you go system. "Babies born today will never retire" is still just an assumption, and I would not base public policy on such a vague idea, at least until you have some clarity that you could hang your hat on.In any case, someone such as yourself who believes (or is at least familiar with) in the technological singularity ought to recognize that social security is basically already obsolete for babies being born today who will never retire.