tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post5715677932509504736..comments2024-03-18T13:22:06.536-07:00Comments on Calafia Beach Pundit: Higher taxes on the rich would barely dent the deficitScott Grannishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14028519647946868684noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-50545715839877637952014-08-19T04:14:17.617-07:002014-08-19T04:14:17.617-07:00If Your Not RICH Or Even On The High Side Of What&... If Your Not RICH Or Even On The High Side Of What's Left Of The Middle Class Why Are You Fighting So Hard For Somebody Else TAX CUTS & LOOPHOLES???<br /> The Top 0.1% Pay Less Then The Top10% The More You Make the More You Should Have To Pay A % Of The Group Belo You. TAXES Can Be To High Like They Were In The 50's At 90+% But Since Reagan Got Them Below 50% They've Hurt More Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09100868914118272042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-88887156210286865252014-08-19T04:13:58.006-07:002014-08-19T04:13:58.006-07:00Every Time They Say Raising Taxes On The Rich Woul...Every Time They Say Raising Taxes On The Rich Wouldn't Pay Off The Dept Sickens Me Because Every Little Bit Count We Have To Pay It Off Over Time Like Most PPL's Mortgages. The 50-100Billion Can Be Invested In Many Ways With A Greater Return.<br /> When It Comes To Tax Cuts Or Raises On The Rich What We Do Know Is Tax Cuts On The Rich Produce Dept It Did Under Reagan & It Did Under Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09100868914118272042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-90275713023746805962012-11-15T10:37:51.918-08:002012-11-15T10:37:51.918-08:00What's never mentioned on this board is the &q...What's never mentioned on this board is the "what for", or the reason for the progressives policies. IMO, most progressives live under the illusion that prosperity can and should be shared through wealth redistribution. They think it is altruistic. What they don't realize is that they are pawns in a bigger game. <br /><br />What we are witnessing is a longterm concerted effortBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18190525712352815677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-75123612024181257792012-11-14T23:58:28.882-08:002012-11-14T23:58:28.882-08:00Guys, please focus. Barak Obama doesn't care a...Guys, please focus. Barak Obama doesn't care about ANY numbers, and especially not about any deficits. His idea is "steal from the rich", until now to get elected and from now on just to get applause. Unless you can instill in people the sense that stealing in general is wrong, he will go on winning. Who cares about jobs and the economy if you can get things for free by stealing Ralf Grautehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512810458016851763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-10095104237338008402012-11-14T10:59:13.505-08:002012-11-14T10:59:13.505-08:00Re "I still would like to see a graph of Fede...Re "I still would like to see a graph of Federal spending divided by Federal receipts"<br /><br />That graph would be very similar to the chart of the surplus/deficit % of GDP posted above, only inverted. The ratio hit a high of 1.72 in early 2010, which was when the deficit hit a high of 10.5% of GDP. The ratio has since declined to 1.45.Scott Grannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14028519647946868684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-68532109585726304572012-11-14T09:44:08.272-08:002012-11-14T09:44:08.272-08:00For America to contend with its national debt and ...For America to contend with its national debt and budget deficit, all incomes will have to be taxes at the 50% level minimum, and probably much higher -- said another way, tax rates need to triple for everyone in order to make a dent in the national debt.<br /><br />The other austerity alternative is to cut spending, which has been soundly rejected by Americans in the last election.<br /><br />IfMcKibbinUSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10545798495680527622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-67516059115652046472012-11-14T09:30:27.730-08:002012-11-14T09:30:27.730-08:00I still would like to see a graph of Federal spend...I still would like to see a graph of Federal spending divided by Federal receipts. It'll show that they are spending 20%-40% more than is taken in. That's what will inflame the folks. These GDP ratios are meaningless to a lot of people.NormanBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05986709079442388236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-68244911436983693162012-11-14T09:04:41.664-08:002012-11-14T09:04:41.664-08:00obama just proposed a $1.6T tax hike for "wea...obama just proposed a $1.6T tax hike for "wealthy" with nothing but dubious cuts. fiscal cliff anyone?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07387986994469835875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-32073821598390027762012-11-14T07:45:35.568-08:002012-11-14T07:45:35.568-08:00Steve has done the right maths. It's not rocke...Steve has done the right maths. It's not rocket science. Sadly, not a single politician is willing to do the same.Public Libraryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00017383928897945054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-23081063661078774962012-11-14T07:23:42.763-08:002012-11-14T07:23:42.763-08:00.. "boosting taxes for the wealthiest 2 perce..... "boosting taxes for the wealthiest 2 percent would bring in $58.1 billion in fiscal year 2013, according to Bloomberg" ....Well every little bit helps. Fixing the economy takes a combination of decrease spending and increases revenues but the details are the devil.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16657196447753180715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-35740284293970793992012-11-14T07:16:03.137-08:002012-11-14T07:16:03.137-08:00
“The ideas of economists and political philosop...<br /> “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” Scott every time you quote Milton Friedman you remind Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16657196447753180715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-16121712143071273232012-11-14T04:48:37.489-08:002012-11-14T04:48:37.489-08:00the ideal tax: 20% flat tax with NO deductions. NO...the ideal tax: 20% flat tax with NO deductions. NONE! have a $12,500 "exemption" per dependent/taxpayer so that a family of 4 w/ $50K income pays 0 fed tax while same family w/ $500K pays (500-50X.2) $90K or 18% and same family with $5M income pays<br />19.8% rate. of course the dems lose POWER by losing control so very apolitical.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07387986994469835875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-27464261878428882392012-11-13T23:05:37.470-08:002012-11-13T23:05:37.470-08:00in reply to Scott Granis:
Who says that the probl...in reply to Scott Granis:<br /><br />Who says that the problem is spending, and we must reduce spending now:<br /><br />The problem with this proposition is that no one ever really wants to cut that spending. Romney-Ryan was completely unwilling to specify any spending cuts. I think republicans just don't have the guts to really campaign on that. Maybe because they fear they would not be bt1138https://www.blogger.com/profile/12843326237379459791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-82744200516915135152012-11-13T19:48:50.672-08:002012-11-13T19:48:50.672-08:00Drill, baby, drill, but also tax gasoline.
BTW, t...Drill, baby, drill, but also tax gasoline.<br /><br />BTW, the Cleveland Fed says inflationary expectations for the next 10 years are at 1.5 percent.<br /><br />That's well under the 2 percent target of the Fed, a dubiously low target in a recession anyway.<br /><br />The Fed should print money to the moon.<br /><br />News Release: October 16, 2012<br />The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Benjamin Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001038338873263877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-86421186814306394012012-11-13T19:13:52.597-08:002012-11-13T19:13:52.597-08:00The half of the defense spending that could be cut...The half of the defense spending that could be cut is for defending “our” foreign oil. Defense will be reduced along with the reduced need for foreign oil. So eliminating the road blocks for gas and oil production will do wonders for the deficit especially when the U.S. is able to start exporting energy in large quantities.<br /><br />Back to the numbers. Republicans say the complete repeal ofAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-5569531966359633362012-11-13T17:39:52.213-08:002012-11-13T17:39:52.213-08:00Still, neither party is talking about the largest ...Still, neither party is talking about the largest of federal agencies, in terms of spending: Defense, Homeland Security and the VA---$1 trillion a year.<br /><br />Cato Institute says defense could be cut in half. <br /><br />But Cato said that before real outlays doubled in these categories, during the Bush jr. years. <br /><br />We face no military threats. None. <br /><br />We face the threat Benjamin Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001038338873263877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-70130983999110507912012-11-13T17:07:18.537-08:002012-11-13T17:07:18.537-08:00It's also very important to note that, as Milt...It's also very important to note that, as Milton Friedman famously said, "spending is taxation." Tax rates and deficits are not as important as the level of spending, because excessive spending eventually requires excessive taxation. <br /><br />The debate today should focus on the fact that we have excessive spending, not on level of tax rates.<br /><br />If we want to avoid Scott Grannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14028519647946868684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-586827807989155392012-11-13T16:58:38.308-08:002012-11-13T16:58:38.308-08:00Jake: counter-counter argument: The 70% tax rates ...Jake: counter-counter argument: The 70% tax rates of the 60s and 70s yielded revenues of about 17% of GDP, which is less than the revenues generated by the lower tax rates of the 80s and 90s. Very high tax rates were tolerated because there were massive deductions available to upper income earners. Given the choice between high marginal rates with big deductions and low marginal rates with Scott Grannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14028519647946868684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-76793295905894094722012-11-13T16:46:11.673-08:002012-11-13T16:46:11.673-08:00Funny - when Republicans talk about cutting taxes,...Funny - when Republicans talk about cutting taxes, it's "stimulating" and "temporary". When those temporary cuts are about to expire, the big whining starts, and the benefits for the budget deficit are belittled.Gloeschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705125909506053628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-91539218331811302082012-11-13T16:23:20.145-08:002012-11-13T16:23:20.145-08:00Arguing about marginal tax rates is silly since th...Arguing about marginal tax rates is silly since the most important rate is the effective tax rate on your income. It's been very steady for the top earners since 1979. No one paid a 90% effective rate in the 1950s- with exemptions, deductions and loopholes the effective rate was probably about the same as it is today. Joe: Do you think wealthy folks would stick around for long if the govtBillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06910619601367464068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-70453341998162776632012-11-13T15:59:56.421-08:002012-11-13T15:59:56.421-08:00Joseph: This is not about "not hurting",...Joseph: This is not about "not hurting", it is about doing something that is proven to work better than the current "low taxes for the rich" meme. From the mid-1930s through 1970s when the top tax rates were between 70 and 90% we had much better GDP growth and equally distributed income growth. The question is why we continue to do something that is proven to work worse over Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17141887720434208291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-2641611822821198802012-11-13T15:30:37.031-08:002012-11-13T15:30:37.031-08:00All for Scott's idea. Limit deductions which a...All for Scott's idea. Limit deductions which amount to loopholes and leave rates where they are. In a perfect world, we would see flat taxes across the board for any income. On both individual and corporations. However, I will take the above before I get hammered next year with the current proposals including Prop 30.Public Libraryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00017383928897945054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-67024722290164779902012-11-13T15:07:38.463-08:002012-11-13T15:07:38.463-08:00I just never understood arguments for doing someth...I just never understood arguments for doing something because it appears it won’t hurt. Really Jake, there has to be a good reason to do something. Taking money from the rich to squander it on life style consumption, because it may not reduce investment and thus not hurt economic growth, is not a good reason to tax the rich.<br /><br />Here is an idea. Get the budget balanced over ten years Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-84530764090502177432012-11-13T14:34:46.550-08:002012-11-13T14:34:46.550-08:00Counter-argument:
"But will raising top tax ...Counter-argument:<br /><br />"But will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? In the postwar U.S., higher top tax rates tend to go with higher economic growth—not lower. Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP annual growth per capita (to adjust for population growth) averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07946497592651234440noreply@blogger.com