goBPer economic mythology de-bunkedwhy the gobp is wrong for us
Posted February 25 2012 - 07:26 AM
Great Britain Raises Taxes on Rich, Tax Revenues Fall
You mean, when you tax something, you get less of it? Who knew? well we do
Posted February 25 2012 - 03:30 PM
Farley we have another great real life example why this article is a left wing talking point based on false assumptions
Great Britain Raises Taxes on Rich, Tax Revenues Fall
You mean, when you tax something, you get less of it? Who knew? well we do
So if Higher Taxes on Higher earnings don't work and Trickle Down dosen't work, what's the solution?
Actually if you read the article and maybe even more importantly, who owns this newspaper, you will understand why they would be against higher taxes for higher earners.
I found this paragraph telling........Although the official statistics do not disclose how much money was paid at the 50p rate of tax, the figures indicate that it is falling short of the money the levy was expected to raise
I can't help but notice that nowhere in the article does the writer provide a link to the gov website that deals with taxes to show that high earners have moved their money out of the country to avoid paying taxes ala Mittens. But these kind of publications ie; Fox, always just scream and hope no one checks or thinks about what they are saying.
Obama's plan was to have earners netting over a Million a year pay an additional 2.5% on every dollar over $1 mill they earn. So someone earning $11 million a year would pay an additional 2.5% on the 10 mill which works out to 250,000 a year............
Posted February 26 2012 - 06:26 AM
and for those fabulously wealthy over 250M
-he wants to eliminate Bush's tax cuts-4.6%
-dividend increase 24.6%
-Increase medicare tax-.9%
-3.8% Medicare contribution tax on unearned income (realized capital gains, dividends, interest, rents and royalties)
and we still have a 1.4 trillion dollar per year deficit
These are just some of the many new taxes --
but in fact the truth about economic concepts only has a small part linked to taxes(other than idiological)--In a nutshell a pure Keynesian believes that consumers and their demand for goods and services are key economic drivers, while a supply-sider believes that producers and their willingness to create goods and services set the pace of economic growth--now the problem with supply side is with the exception of a short two year window under Clinton--we have never executed true supply side economics-which requires no deficit spending to keep a strong dollar-so the government intervenes with imports to drive inflation out of the system (this is perhaps the single biggest issue the left faces when talking about supply side economics-and totally makes Farley article rather simple minded)
On the idiological side if supply side economics are true, it implies a reduced role for government and a less progressive tax policy. (which is why you see all these left wingers attacking supply side economics)
but back to taxes and "fairness" and I quote Why, according to the OECD, is the US tax system so progressive-
and finally just as a comparison--for you Reagan haters- In the first ten quarters of the Obama Recovery, real GDP is up a total of 6 percent vs. 16 percent in the Reagan Recovery. Or to put it another way, after 10 quarters of recovery, the Reagan growth rate was 6 percent vs. Obama’s 2.4 percent vs. 4.6 percent for the average post-World War II expansion. Another factoid: In the 31 months of BO, the economy added 1.8 million net nonfarm payrolls vs. 8.9 million during the RR
So we know the marginal tax rate decrease worked much better for the economy under Reagan than the stimulus program did under Obama
Posted February 27 2012 - 11:22 AM
Posted February 27 2012 - 05:34 PM
Posted February 28 2012 - 04:08 AM
Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House:
While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars-and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.
The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades sinceJohn F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX)only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.
That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.
“The market does tend to do better under Democrats than under Republicans,” Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research
Democratic administrations also may be more likely to spend money on government programs that stimulate the economy, Stovall said.
“I dare say that most people on Wall Street are Republicans,” Stovall said. “But it appears the bread is buttered on the Democratic side.”
U.S. companies are booking higher profits than ever. But the number crunchers in Washington are puzzling over a phenomenon that has just come into view: Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years.
Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008.
Posted March 18 2012 - 05:01 AM
The questioner (Sam Seder of the Majority Report) asks just eight questions, and the answers are so cogent and clear that you feel like you've walked through a ton of material and barely exerted yourself. It's quite a performance by both of them
Posted April 09 2012 - 02:13 PM
Sen. Chuck Schumer defended proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy as an issue of fairness Monday ahead of President Barack Obama’s trip to Florida this week to tout the “Buffett rule.”
“This is such a bogus argument,” the New York Democrat said on CBS “This Morning” when asked to comment on Republican charges that Democrats are taking up the issue only because of the fall election. “We have believed, as a country, that higher-income people should pay a higher percentage of income since the 16th Amendment, which was 1912. It came in with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives.”
“There’s no class warfare involved; it’s a question simply of fairness,” he said.
Posted April 09 2012 - 03:24 PM
it raises so little revenue even the left snicker about the so called fairness"spin of this wealth tax
You have to be brain dead to buy this so called "fairness" garbage.
The working man better hope old Nama isn't elected for a second term cause the big bucks on the tax revenue side are those folks under 100 grand a year and he needs that money to fuel his spending habit
Ps we now have another new record under Bama 87 million plus folks not working
Posted April 10 2012 - 03:17 AM
Look around you at something as obvios as the condition of the roads in anywhere America. Who's going to pay to fix them? I'm sure that all of the extra money realized from the 'fair tax' would result in jobs being created by repaiting these roads. A win, win for drivers and the tax base as we would have more people woring paying taxes and buying whatever they need.
Well everyone has to decide if it's fair or not. Now this won't cause the 'flat taxers' to get excited but it starts to level out the inequality.
You are making 50 to 100,000 a year and you pay 30% tax.but Joe reports a net income of $1.5 mill and pays 15% (ie MITTens) tax because he can afford the upfront fee's of creative accountants (whose fee's are tax deductible by the way). Joe's other 2 million dosen't get reported because these creative acct's have opened up a Swiss bank acct for him.
You making 50 to 100,000 don't have extra money to open swiss bank accts to hide your income, not that you would do that anyways because you are a patriotic American.
In 2007, the last year before the Great Recession, millionaires reported $1.4 trillion in income and paid an effective tax rate of 22.1 percent on average. If they paid 30 percent on average (as they did as recently as 1996), the federal government would have collected an additional $110 billion that year, enough to cut the fiscal year 2007 deficit by more than two-thirds.
Now, deficits are much larger in future years, and no one is suggesting that the Buffett Rule will come close to solving that problem by itself. But the Buffett Rule is a part of any balanced approach – and essential to restoring fairness to the tax code.
Posted April 10 2012 - 05:04 AM
but first things first
Xg you have to be one of the most misinformed tax payer in the country--who pray tell is your tax accountant--cause if you are making "50 to 100,000 a year and you pay 30% tax" you are getting robbed by the government--if your single making 100 grand your effective tax rate is less than 22%-married it drops to less than 18%--and once you sneak down to that magic 50 grand number with a family of 4 you pay nothing--0
"Unemployment is the result of this unfair tax rate" "all of the extra money realized from the 'fair tax' would result in jobs being created" "all that extra money" are you out of your mind --outside of the fact that the 70's finally killed the Keynesian economic model you would have thought after the wasted money thrown away in the stimulus bill it would have finally killed that concept about government created jobs (and the fact that government jobs created are the most inefficient job you can create)--but the bottom line XG is there is no extra money--none--zippo-zilch--what part of financial downgrade-Greece-Europe--do you not understand--the government is out of the job creation business-the so called Buffet Tax raises less money per year than the government spends in every minute of one day--it is political only and solves not one iota of our issue
as for the fairness issue--We currently have the most progressive tax code in the world--The ratio of income tax paid to market income earned the highest of any industrialized country--So the issue XG with taxes is not "fairness" so what is it--on the revenue side the answer is very very simple-you can't have 48% of the population pay nothing-so if you really care about "fairness" and you think the wealthy don't pay enough--then hold on to your hat cause that means a huge tax increase for the not so well off
The bottom line XG if your objective is to raise more tax revenue you must take away the loopholes--and that is why every tax commission ever assembled has recommended flattening the tax codes to raise revenues--but our issue is not on the revenue side--we can not tax our way out of the Obama problem
The "fairness" issue is political spin--to counter the real issue facing the country--and the Democrats ideologically can no longer solve the spending issue based on their expanded "equalism" political strategy (which destroys the middle class)--if you want to fund a Obama size government every single working person in the country has to pay a lot more--and that is the game plan in a second term
PS XG- "If they paid 30 percent on average (as they did as recently as 1996), the federal government would have collected an additional $110 billion that year" that good old fuzzy math--can the left not find anyone who understands the tax code--the buffet tax code--the CBO has costed the so called Buffet tax and that 30% number raises less than 50 billion dollars in revenue (in a decade)--it is the lefts fuzzy math that has us trying to figure out how we raise more money on the wealthy to spend more money we don't have
Let's face it XG this tax isn't about revenue or creating jobs it is a tax that is meant to create an emotional response----Bama should be ashamed
Posted April 10 2012 - 03:47 PM
Republicans turned down Obama on taking away the 'loopholes'. Won't happen.
Obama says Republicans in Congress won't name one tax exemption they want to repeal
The House Republicans envision dramatically different income tax rates, though. Instead of today’s six income tax brackets -- 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent -- they would use just two brackets, 10 percent and 25 percent.
Clearly, this would represent a big rate reduction for people in the top brackets. To keep tax revenues from taking a nosedive, House Republicans say they will end current exemptions and deductions, which both they and Obama refer to as "loopholes."
American corporations have pretty much written off the middle class. Their actions declare that the middle class is moribund. And they should know since they have been in the front lines shooting down and decimating the middle class. Indeed, American business has dismantled much of its manufacturing and has eliminated untold numbers of other middle class jobs, sending them overseas where cheap labor fattens corporate profits at the expense of American workers. That’s why the employment and housing markets are struggling on life support, food stamp use is at an all-time high and the ranks of the working poor are swelling — while corporate profits soar and the S&P 500 stocks show the best first quarter since 1998.
Posted April 11 2012 - 06:14 AM
'high income tax' rate for high earners. We all know they don't pay anywhere near that rate at the end of the day.
not sure what your talking about here XG -since I didn't talk about rates for the wealthy--except the actual tax dollars paid to income ratio which is pretty well documented and any body can do the pretty easy math based on government records
but I agree we shouldn't insult each others intelligence so lets stick with the hard numbers instead of Obama's campaign rhetoric -
The bottom line XG is the size of the government --and the revenues needed to fund that size government- and how much are you willing to pay for that size government-
we need 40% of GDP to pay for our current government (all government)
and the math is pretty simple--
-without any ideology there simply aren't enough top 1% or top 10% or the 52% WHO PAY TAXES TO BALANCE THE CURRENT BUDGET and future commitments-
but while you are concerned with ideology --Rich vs poor-big government small government--the real issue facing this country is generational
and this is the math-An American who turned 65 in 2010 paid on average $345,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes over his or her working lifetime-That person can expect to collect benefits averaging $417,000 over the remainder of his or her life-Americans now under age 40 can expect to pay much more into Social Security and Medicare than they will ever receive back--Trying to sustain today’s level of benefits by taxing tomorrow’s productive workers is the equivalent of losing money on every sale and making up the difference on volume--you go bankrupt
So while you ***** and moan about American business--the only hope our under 40's have is to grow GDP rapidly creating productive jobs and slow down our rate of spending--and we can't do that by creating barriers and demonizing job creators-or taking more and more of a productive workers income to pay for the unproductive--Simply put we have to make some drastic changes--and talking about a Buffet tax without the rest of the budget is pure ideology and very counter productive
as for a flat tax--it is about raising revenue and total dollars----and the math is simple--no "loopholes" so everybody pays a share and the more you make the more you pay--and the wealthy pay significantly more than they do today-which is extremely difficult for any politician--Democrat and Republican
Posted April 12 2012 - 05:35 AM
but Obama sure is lasar focused on the deficit--"Fair share" taxes (where the top 3 percent already pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 97 percent combined) raises less than we spend in an hour in Washington--What an absolute farce-
PS--just as I pointed out three years ago Obama's economic rationale for his class-warfare economic policies were cherry-picked and incomplete--a new report confirms exactly what we discovered 3 and a half years ago--the numbers from Obama's economic team (Piketty and Saez) were significantly incomplete --this incomplete data is what Obama and the left has used for the class warfare assault on the American public-
What these shysters failed to include in their income study was value of all government transfers — including welfare, Social Security, and other government provided cash assistance -taxes and tax credits-and the largest income stream -healthcare benefits- So as was pointed out 3 years ago Piketty and Saez used pre-tax, pre-transfer tax unit cash (market) income instead of the total income stream of post-tax, post-transfer size-adjusted household cash income--
and bingo we get very different numbers on the so called income disparity-- “shared prosperity” happened --and it was pretty obvious when you consider that income inequality has actually been shrinking since 1989 based on the GINI index
Posted April 13 2012 - 07:18 AM
the new report out this morning shows-the bottom 50% of Tax payers pay less than 3 percent of federal taxes while earning 13 percent of the income. (which isn't a huge surprise since nearly half the people who file pay no tax)-top 10 percent pay 70% of the tax while earning only 45% of the income--and the top 1% earn 20% of the income while paying a whopping 38% of the taxes-so the math is pretty clear--we have 90% of the population who pay only 30% of the tax while earning 55% of the income
and somehow our tax system is "unfair" because the rich don't pay a "fair share"--bolder-dash--our tax system is broken because of all the political special interest exemptions- It is pretty obvious the Democrats have hitched their wagon to a much bigger government than we can afford--so the key question is how do you pay for it--that is pretty simple grasshoppers--the top 10% only have a taxable base increase of 30% while the 90% have 55%--The tax money is in the gap--and economically not a pretty picture so it limits the size the government can be
The key to this election cycle will again fall on the independents--and they are laser focused on the deficit--and the vast majority could care dingle berries about a "fair tax" based on the latest poll data--the Ryan budget allows the Republicans to focus on those key independents--After the White House disastrous budget fiasco two years in a row and their election strategy to focus on "class and equalism warfare"--will they now be forced to submit a budget through a surrogate--watch the Senate
Posted April 20 2012 - 10:34 AM