Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 06:51 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Raising Taxes On Rich Won't Hurt Economic Growth, CBO Says

Quote:
Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013 if Congress extends expiring tax rates on lower income levels, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday.

In a report expected to fuel Democrats' post-election demands for higher taxes on the rich, the CBO said extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts, along with changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax, would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth by 1.5 percentage points, compared to letting these rates snap back to prior levels.

If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said growth would rise by 1.25 percent -- just a quarter point less than extending all of the cuts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2094592.html

You may also watch the infographic too.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 08:19 AM
txshellie's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-04-08
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 2,045
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Just because something is repeated over and over, doesn't make it true. And this CBO estimate is based on what? Not historical data..... more feel good economics.

The top 10% of Americans pay 70% of the taxes and 50% of citizens don't pay any income tax at all. (yes... we all know they pay payroll taxes that are defrayed by their employers)

The current mess we are in can only be solved if we cut entitlements down to a level that supports those who are truly needy, cut taxes to small businesses who can hire folks and get them back to work and cut the budget in other ways to reduce our expenditures.

That's what we are all doing at home in our personal lives. Making adjustments to the economy.

Romer and Romer find that despite the complexity of the legislative process, most significant tax changes have been motivated by one of four factors: counteracting other influences on the economy; paying for increases in government spending (or lowering taxes in conjunction with reductions in spending); addressing an inherited budget deficit; and promoting long-run growth. They observe that legislated tax changes taken to counteract other influences on the economy, or to pay for increases in government spending, are very likely to be correlated with other factors affecting the economy. As a result, these observations are likely to lead to biased estimates of the effect of tax changes.

Tax changes that are made to promote long-run growth, or to reduce an inherited budget deficit, in contrast, are undertaken for reasons essentially unrelated to other factors influencing output. Thus, examining the behavior of output following these relatively exogenous tax changes is likely to provide more reliable estimates of the output effects of tax changes. The results of this more reliable test indicate that tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent.


http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=439x871529

This website sources: http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html
__________________
Shellie
Owner, Christmas Light Source
 
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 08:49 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by txshellie View Post
The top 10% of Americans pay 70% of the taxes and 50% of citizens don't pay any income tax at all. (yes... we all know they pay payroll taxes that are defrayed by their employers)
If 50% of citizen don't pay taxes is because they can't, most of the time they don't make enough to live a decent life. Look how many people are on food stamps because they don't make enough...

Quote:
The current mess we are in can only be solved if we cut entitlements down to a level that supports those who are truly needy, cut taxes to small businesses who can hire folks and get them back to work and cut the budget in other ways to reduce our expenditures.
I don't think entitlements should be cut, if people get entitlements it is because they need it. The problem is that the fruits of the labor are not distributed proportional to the amounts of effort contributed within companies.

Quote:
That's what we are all doing at home in our personal lives. Making adjustments to the economy.
You can make economical adjustment only if you have enough money to live, some people don't have enough money to make a living. Look, take for example all the people working part time because employers cannot hire full time, look at the people underpay or people educated that do not find a high pay jobs.

I mean that if we want a great society, people need to compromise and balance correctly each level of the society.

Even the political parties are going to have their things together and compromise to move foward and make a great society for all.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 12:12 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Obama calls on House to pass tax hikes for wealthy

Quote:
Flush with re-election vigor, President Barack Obama called Friday for House Republicans to immediately pass a bill already approved by the Senate to extend current tax rates for middle class Americans while allowing a tax hike for wealthier citizens.

In his first public comments since winning Tuesday's vote, Obama expressed openness to negotiate with Congress on how to deal with pending tax hikes and spending cuts that create the so-called fiscal cliff facing the economy at the end of the year.

However, he also repeated a longstanding demand from well before the election that Republican opponents to any kind of tax increase relent to the will of the White House and the Senate, and now the American people as well, on letting tax rates increase on income over $250,000.

Nobody in either party wants the middle class, identified as families making less than $250,000 a year, to see taxes increase at the end of the year when lower rates set during the administration of former President George W. Bush will expire, Obama said.

"That makes no sense. It would be bad for the economy," he told a White House gathering of what aides described as middle class Americans. "Let's extend middle class tax cuts right now. Let's do that right now. That one step would give millions of families, 98% of Americans, 97% of small businesses, the certainty that they need going into the new year."

Noting the Senate previously passed a bill to extend the tax cuts to the middle class, but not income over $250,000, Obama said "all we need is action from the House."

"I've got the pen," he said, reaching into his pocket to hold one up as the crowd applauded. "I'm ready to sign the bill right away. I'm ready to do it."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/politi...-fiscal-cliff/
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 02:32 PM
txshellie's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-04-08
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 2,045
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Elements View Post
You can make economical adjustment only if you have enough money to live, some people don't have enough money to make a living. Look, take for example all the people working part time because employers cannot hire full time, look at the people underpay or people educated that do not find a high pay jobs..
So how exactly are folks supposed to have enough money to hire people if they are pouring more money into the government?

The government only has so many administrative and post office positions that it can fill..... are you saying we should raise taxes and entitlements?

That would certainly level the playing field. But I don't think that is working so well in Greece and Europe.

Why don't we take a look at the disastrous effects of Clinton's tax increase....and what he and congress did together that spurred on the economy.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/


Doesn't President Obama have Bill on speed dial?

This is the last time I'm going to chime in on this topic.

And for anyone who doesn't have the time to click to the article, here is an excerpt. (Note that the article mentions that Clinton did raise taxes but on everyone making an equivalent to $400,000 and above in today's dollars and it really backfired.)

Here is how he fixed that mistake:

However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.
  • Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
  • The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
  • In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
  • The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
  • Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
  • The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.

The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:
  • Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
  • Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
  • As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
  • Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
  • Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
Shared prosperity indeed! But one created not by raising tax rates on high income but not yet rich middle class families, and certainly not by raising the capital gains tax rate or by imposing the equivalent of the Buffett rule, a new alternative minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million, nor by massively increasing federal spending.

Rather, it was a prosperity produced by freeing America’s poor from a punitive welfare system, lowering tariffs, reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth, limiting the growth of federal government expenditures, and providing a strong and stable dollar to businesses and families in America and throughout the world.
__________________
Shellie
Owner, Christmas Light Source
 
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 03:13 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,127
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
If 50% of citizen don't pay taxes is because they can't, most of the time they don't make enough to live a decent life. Look how many people are on food stamps because they don't make enough...
Yet they seem to have money for cell phones, fast food, indulged children and cable or satellite TV.

Wake up America!
__________________
I do not put ads or pop-ups in my posts and I have no control of what shows there. I do not endorse any product displayed in my post.
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 03:32 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by txshellie View Post
So how exactly are folks supposed to have enough money to hire people if they are pouring more money into the government?
Well, it seems like you are making things like the government will take it all.

Really, a contribution of a tax rates may go up between 2 and 4 percent for the country’s higher earners is not a big deal.

Quote:
reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth, limiting the growth of federal government expenditures, and providing a strong and stable dollar to businesses and families in America and throughout the world.[/I]
Define the creators of wealth. I am sure we have a different opinion on this. If the creators of wealth are investors, and CEO's, in my opinion you are missing an important part which is labor, without labor creator of wealth don't have any.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
Yet they seem to have money for cell phones, fast food, indulged children and cable or satellite TV.
They pay taxes on phones, fast food, indulged children and cable or satellite TV. Frankly it is not a high standard life style to eat fast food, watch TV, etc...

I think some people need to give up their aristocracy mind set.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 03:37 PM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,763
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Though we can (and the government of course) debate on the best way forward, the problem is that there is little that can be done to fix economic growth. This applies to Europe as well as the USA.

Times have changed, we no longer live in the 80's, 90's or 2000's. We are in the 2010's, were Eastern countries are becoming the new world economic powers and we (Europe/ US) are falling behind.

I have heard many debates stating that the best way forward would be to help our workers and allow us to produce in-house items and the only way to do this would be to make higher tax charges on imports. Truth is, this idea is nuts in reality.

If I was in charge of a corporation and someone said that "widget1" cost $5 to make in-house but $3 to import and I needed to get 500,000 of them, then why would I spend an extra million dollars just so as to get them made in my country? Also, I would have to pass this costing onto the consumer and as things stand now with the economy, somehow I think a majority want the cheaper option.

We can not compete with India or China, or even Japan for that matter. Heck, they can get items made, imported to our countries and even after stamp duty the darned things still cost less.

This is not a level playing field and is heavily weighted against us.

Greed of corporations and laziness (not all unemployed but a good section of them) caused this problem.

As for raising taxes on the rich, this will just force their hand to move head offices to another country. Heck, Richard Branson in the UK moved parts of his corporation overseas so as to avoid tax hikes, so I would be very careful with constantly playing the "TAX THE RICH" card as it could be a double-edged sword.

ScriptMan is right, unemployed or not, they all seem to be able to afford cable, mobile phones, heck some even have cars and live better than some hard-working folk on the breadline (in the uk anyway)
__________________
Click Here for Chester Carpet Cleaners
Sequential Labeling - Sticker and Decal Printers
 
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 03:55 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by G10 View Post
Though we can (and the government of course) debate on the best way forward, the problem is that there is little that can be done to fix economic growth. This applies to Europe as well as the USA.

Times have changed, we no longer live in the 80's, 90's or 2000's. We are in the 2010's, were Eastern countries are becoming the new world economic powers and we (Europe/ US) are falling behind.

I have heard many debates stating that the best way forward would be to help our workers and allow us to produce in-house items and the only way to do this would be to make higher tax charges on imports. Truth is, this idea is nuts in reality.

If I was in charge of a corporation and someone said that "widget1" cost $5 to make in-house but $3 to import and I needed to get 500,000 of them, then why would I spend an extra million dollars just so as to get them made in my country? Also, I would have to pass this costing onto the consumer and as things stand now with the economy, somehow I think a majority want the cheaper option.

We can not compete with India or China, or even Japan for that matter. Heck, they can get items made, imported to our countries and even after stamp duty the darned things still cost less.

This is not a level playing field and is heavily weighted against us.

Greed of corporations and laziness (not all unemployed but a good section of them) caused this problem.
Actual, it is an interesting point.

For example in US, or in Europe we can put in place some quotas and I guess we have to do that for a fairplay.

Import $100 billions worth products, then export $100 billions worth products if countries like China, India, you name it, export more, that's fine but we need to tax 25% everything unbalanced. Like this we can keep some jobs, they can keep exporting, but if they import less than they export, the tax system crank on. Either they reduce their exportations or they increase their importations to avoid the taxes.

If we do nothing, I am afraid that it is obviously an unfair competition for the companies that build things in our countries, and we may collapse our economies, perhaps our entire systems.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 04:10 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,127
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Show me the actual numbers where only taxing the wealthy will yield any significant amount of revenue. The only tax increase that yields big dollars is on the already taxed to death middle class.

As for other comments made in this thread, our gross household income (for 2) has never exceeded $75K. It isn't what you make, it is what you have leftover that counts. Poor people have poor money management skills; that is why they are poor. I was one of them, learned and did better.
__________________
I do not put ads or pop-ups in my posts and I have no control of what shows there. I do not endorse any product displayed in my post.
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 04:36 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
As for other comments made in this thread, our gross household income (for 2) has never exceeded $75K. It isn't what you make, it is what you have leftover that counts.
So what's the big deal if you aren't above $250,000?


Quote:
Poor people have poor money management skills; that is why they are poor. I was one of them, learned and did better.
I am sorry ScriptMan, I don't buy that, some may have poor management skill but making a generality isn't right.

Like I said earlier, the problem is that the fruits of the labor are not distributed proportional to the amounts of effort contributed within companies.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 04:59 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
Yet they seem to have money for cell phones, fast food, indulged children and cable or satellite TV.

Wake up America!
Just for information, check all the subsidies that go out of the taxpayer pockets to the corporations by state, not everything are listed but check the available information, that's huge...

Subsidy Tracker Data Sources
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/subsidy...r-data-sources

Wake up America!
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 06:18 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Tax bracket at $250,000 and raised the rate to 39.6 percent generate a lot of Republican complaints, but in 1986 it was 50 percent under President Ronald Reagan

Rich and Sort of Rich
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/we...ax250copy.html

Another interesting article on tax brackets

Quote:
Lowest Tax Brackets
Income tax brackets are divided into six categories based on income. As of 2010, married couples filing jointly earning less than $16,750, or individuals making less than $8,375 annually, fall into the 10 percent tax bracket. This means these taxpayers will pay 10 percent of their earnings into the federal tax system.

Married couples filing jointly making more than $16,750 but less than $68,000 annually, or single individuals who make more than $8,375 but less than $34,000, are in the 15 percent tax bracket.

Middle Tax Brackets
The middle of the tax bracket scales cover the majority of taxpayers, also known as the "middle class" Americans. These working individuals are not nearing the poverty line but also are not wealthy; therefore, they can be considered "in the middle." As of 2010, married couples filing jointly who earn between $68,000 and $137,000, or individuals who earn between $34,000 and $82,000 annually, are in the 25 percent tax bracket.

Jumping to the 28 percent tax bracket are married couples filing jointly who earn between $137,300 and $209,250 and individuals who earn between $82,400 and $171,850 each year.

Highest Tax Brackets
The two highest tax brackets are 33 and 35 percent. As of 2010, married couples filing jointly who earn between $209,250 and $373,650 and individuals who earn between $171,850 and $373,650 annually are in the 33-percent tax bracket.

The highest tax bracket possible is the 35 percent bracket, which includes married couples filing jointly who earn more than $373,650 and individuals who earn more than $373,650.

Percentage of Brackets
As of 2007, approximately 30 percent of all taxpayers were included in the 15-percent tax bracket, while fewer than 1 percent were included in the highest tax bracket. In fact, fewer than 3 percent of all United States taxpayers were included in the top three tax brackets ranging from 28 to 35 percent that year.

According to CBS News, the number of people who claimed no income tax liability between 1950 and 1990 averaged at approximately 21 percent, with a low of 18 percent in 1986. In the 1990s, that number grew to about 25 percent and in 2009, 43.4 percent -- or 65.6 million -- of Americans paid no federal income taxes.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7367412_inc...d-states_.html

So do you really think that people making less than married couples filing jointly earning less than $16,750, or individuals making less than $8,375 annually should be taxed?

They are already paying sales tax and indirect federal tax, but you guys think that's not enough? Really?
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 06:58 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,127
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Nasa no longer has their inflation index on line that I can find. The problem is that the government always seems to index spending with auto increases but does not index the tables or the rates. 250K was some serious money in tn the 1950's, wasn't bad in the early 70's. Inflation eats away the value of the earnings and the rate tables stay the same.

With the current inflationary spending 250K may be the average salary in 15 years. That is the hidden agenda. It will be just like the passive income rules that have never been updated and will soon be biting the middle class.

You have to draw a line and stand your ground. The problem is not a lack of revenue; the problem is the government wastes so much money as to fritter it all away.
__________________
I do not put ads or pop-ups in my posts and I have no control of what shows there. I do not endorse any product displayed in my post.
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2012, 07:31 PM
Breeze Wood's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 04-06-11
Location: USA
Posts: 958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
.

the new arena is called "Trillion" - once gotten use to will solve everyone's problems ... enough for everyone.


Quote:
NE: Like I said earlier, the problem is that the fruits of the labor are not distributed proportional to the amounts of effort contributed within companies.
this underlying ailment will be solved, and is being solved in America if nowhere else - as exemplified by the immediate past Presidential election.
__________________
.

All's Well that Ends Well

.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Organic Growth vs Forced Growth, Thoughts? solomonjago Marketing Forum 6 10-09-2010 04:46 PM
What is the best idea of raising capital ? Alex Carlson Online Business Forum 15 03-31-2010 11:57 AM
States: It's taxes, taxes and more taxes Franc Tireur Controversial Social Issues 7 05-22-2009 03:09 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Escalate Media




Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.