User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Old Yeller prefers higher taxes

  1. #21
    Points: 5,096, Level: 16
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 54
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered5000 Experience Points
    invictus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    454
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    2,397
    Points
    5,096
    Level
    16
    Thanks Given
    16
    Thanked 444x in 352 Posts
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Do you think any Congress will do this?

    The debt can't be paid off until the deficits end. Do you think that will ever happen?
    I'm hopeful but, I doubt it...

    I think Obama and Boehner came pretty close though so, there's hope!

  2. #22
    Original Ranter
    Points: 649,241, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    455787
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    191,132
    Points
    649,241
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    123,154
    Thanked 106,771x in 69,715 Posts
    Mentioned
    2369 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by invictus View Post
    I'm hopeful but, I doubt it...

    I think Obama and Boehner came pretty close though so, there's hope!
    They had no deal that would approach ending the deficits of that time.

    Over the last decade our deficits have been between $.6T to over $1T per year. Never mind 2020/21 because much of the deficit is COVID spending.

    During the 2012 election cycle the Dems were floating massive tax increases. I don't remember the specifics (I did post them here) but the most draconian plans would have raised ~$240B per year. That would have covered about 1/3rd of the 2012 deficit. So still no money to pay on the debt.

    And those types of draconian tax increases would likely have harmed the economy enough that the actual tax revenues would not have approached the goal.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  3. #23
    Points: 5,096, Level: 16
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 54
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered5000 Experience Points
    invictus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    454
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    2,397
    Points
    5,096
    Level
    16
    Thanks Given
    16
    Thanked 444x in 352 Posts
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    They had no deal that would approach ending the deficits of that time.

    Over the last decade our deficits have been between $.6T to over $1T per year. Never mind 2020/21 because much of the deficit is COVID spending.

    During the 2012 election cycle the Dems were floating massive tax increases. I don't remember the specifics (I did post them here) but the most draconian plans would have raised ~$240B per year. That would have covered about 1/3rd of the 2012 deficit. So still no money to pay on the debt.

    And those types of draconian tax increases would likely have harmed the economy enough that the actual tax revenues would not have approached the goal.
    Well, what Boehner and Obama agreed on was Tax hikes and spending cuts. However, Boehner had to back out because his base started to protest the fact that he came to a compromise with Obama on something. So, there seemed to be two level headed guys who actually came to an agreement but it was the stupid public (Fuelsed by news organizations) that prevented the deal from taking place.

    So, on that, I think there is slim hope. However, the problem right now is that Democrats are in complete power right now and I think only one of them is actually talking about a balanced budget. That said, the Republicans were also in control for two years and they didn't do a damn thing about it either. So, I think in order for a balanced budget to actually come to fruition, it would have to be two opposing sides in power.

  4. #24
    Original Ranter
    Points: 649,241, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    455787
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    191,132
    Points
    649,241
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    123,154
    Thanked 106,771x in 69,715 Posts
    Mentioned
    2369 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by invictus View Post
    Well, what Boehner and Obama agreed on was Tax hikes and spending cuts. However, Boehner had to back out because his base started to protest the fact that he came to a compromise with Obama on something. So, there seemed to be two level headed guys who actually came to an agreement but it was the stupid public (Fuelsed by news organizations) that prevented the deal from taking place.

    So, on that, I think there is slim hope. However, the problem right now is that Democrats are in complete power right now and I think only one of them is actually talking about a balanced budget. That said, the Republicans were also in control for two years and they didn't do a damn thing about it either. So, I think in order for a balanced budget to actually come to fruition, it would have to be two opposing sides in power.
    Tax hikes often bring in less tax revenue because they dampen the economy.

    Here is an article that I used to show Trump's economy was better than Obama's. But I am posting it now to show how Trump handled growing the economy.

    At least until the pandemic, the president’s unconventional policy got unprecedented results.

    Once in office, Trump ignored this consensus. He implemented a program of tax cuts, spending increases and unprecedented pressure on the Fed to cut interest rates to zero and keep them there. Trump’s goal of 3% growth was derided as delusional, while a bipartisan chorus of commentators declared his policies reckless and irresponsible.



    They were anything but. Not only did the unemployment rate continue to fall, but the percentage of Americans aged 25 to 54 either employed or looking for a job saw its first sustained rise since the late 1980s. This inflection point changed the character of the labor market.
    The key to that number is the breadth of Trump’s expansionary agenda. Republican presidents have typically focused on tax cuts, particularly for businesses, with the idea that they will encourage an increase in investment and wages. Democrats have tended to seek spending increases, often with the hope that they will stimulate the overall economy and increase job growth. Presidents of both parties have traditionally left interest-rate policy to the Fed.

    Trump broke the mold by aggressively battling on all three fronts. He also sought to increase jobs in manufacturing and agriculture by pursuing a series of trade wars. (Most economists, from across the ideological spectrum, think this policy backfired.) Nonetheless, if one had to choose between Trump’s three good policies plus trade wars, or the more modest economic policies of his predecessors, the easy choice is Trump.

    Trump increased spending in areas that have a high return on investment. Stuff that returned more than spent.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  5. #25
    Original Ranter
    Points: 649,241, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    455787
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    191,132
    Points
    649,241
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    123,154
    Thanked 106,771x in 69,715 Posts
    Mentioned
    2369 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't think it is possible for any elected Congress to balance the budget. Too many people have an interest in one government program or another.

    Debt will pile up until the economy crashes at some point in the future.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  6. #26
    Points: 5,096, Level: 16
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 54
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered5000 Experience Points
    invictus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    454
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    2,397
    Points
    5,096
    Level
    16
    Thanks Given
    16
    Thanked 444x in 352 Posts
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Tax hikes often bring in less tax revenue because they dampen the economy.

    Here is an article that I used to show Trump's economy was better than Obama's. But I am posting it now to show how Trump handled growing the economy.








    Trump increased spending in areas that have a high return on investment. Stuff that returned more than spent.
    Well, under Trumps tax cuts, the revenue actually decreased and you and I have talked about it before and I posted a link from WSJ proving my case on this matter. (To which you seemed to concede)

    Trumps tax cuts also showed temporary growth. The GDP did increase by 3 percent in the year the cuts were implemented and then went back to the same levels as under Obama after that. As I read in Reuters at the time, that was exactly how economist were predicting it would go. Where Trump was lucky, (and what many were waiting for) there were no bubbles bursting under his watch. Those bubbles bursts is what starts a recession, otherwise an economy is al;ways growing. There were no bubble bursts under Obama either but, the economy was in the toilet when he actually sat... A president, any president, has no control over the economic bubbles that formulate.

    As far as Trumps high returns on investment is very debatasble... For instance, (I can't remember the state) there was a car manufacturing plant that was financed by Trump (Which he boasted about) into staying in the US... As it turns out, that plant took the money and invested in automation. Meaning no new jobs were created. The trade wars did not help one bit and we are subsidizing farmers as a result and not exporting as much due to retaliatory tariffs. So definitely no return on that investment.

  7. #27
    Original Ranter
    Points: 649,241, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    455787
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    191,132
    Points
    649,241
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    123,154
    Thanked 106,771x in 69,715 Posts
    Mentioned
    2369 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by invictus View Post
    Well, under Trumps tax cuts, the revenue actually decreased and you and I have talked about it before and I posted a link from WSJ proving my case on this matter. (To which you seemed to concede)

    Trumps tax cuts also showed temporary growth. The GDP did increase by 3 percent in the year the cuts were implemented and then went back to the same levels as under Obama after that. As I read in Reuters at the time, that was exactly how economist were predicting it would go. Where Trump was lucky, (and what many were waiting for) there were no bubbles bursting under his watch. Those bubbles bursts is what starts a recession, otherwise an economy is al;ways growing. There were no bubble bursts under Obama either but, the economy was in the toilet when he actually sat... A president, any president, has no control over the economic bubbles that formulate.

    As far as Trumps high returns on investment is very debatasble... For instance, (I can't remember the state) there was a car manufacturing plant that was financed by Trump (Which he boasted about) into staying in the US... As it turns out, that plant took the money and invested in automation. Meaning no new jobs were created. The trade wars did not help one bit and we are subsidizing farmers as a result and not exporting as much due to retaliatory tariffs. So definitely no return on that investment.
    Revenue from corporate taxes dropped. Which isn't bad in my view since the customer pays the corporate tax anyway.

    Revenue from individual taxes increased.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  8. #28
    Points: 5,096, Level: 16
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 54
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered5000 Experience Points
    invictus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    454
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    2,397
    Points
    5,096
    Level
    16
    Thanks Given
    16
    Thanked 444x in 352 Posts
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    I don't think it is possible for any elected Congress to balance the budget. Too many people have an interest in one government program or another.

    Debt will pile up until the economy crashes at some point in the future.
    Clinton and Republicans did it back in the 90s...

    Yeah, the interests are tied up but I think it's still possible.

    I just don't see it happen when one p[arty is in full control. When that happens, the party in power is keen on keeping things the way they are.

  9. #29
    Original Ranter
    Points: 649,241, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    455787
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    191,132
    Points
    649,241
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    123,154
    Thanked 106,771x in 69,715 Posts
    Mentioned
    2369 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Deficits were very low back then. And those balanced budgets were more accounting tricks.
    Quote Originally Posted by invictus View Post
    Clinton and Republicans did it back in the 90s...

    Yeah, the interests are tied up but I think it's still possible.

    I just don't see it happen when one p[arty is in full control. When that happens, the party in power is keen on keeping things the way they are.
    I also prefer divided government.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  10. #30
    Points: 5,096, Level: 16
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 54
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered5000 Experience Points
    invictus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    454
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    2,397
    Points
    5,096
    Level
    16
    Thanks Given
    16
    Thanked 444x in 352 Posts
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Revenue from corporate taxes dropped. Which isn't bad in my view since the customer pays the corporate tax anyway.

    Revenue from individual taxes increased.
    No, that article outlined that the overall revenue dropped. I think income taxes did grow but the overall revenue was down. I think the total number is what matters though. However, if it works, then yeah,increase the corporate tax and reduce the income tax.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts