By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - How the US Government Buys Votes

kanageddaamen said:
The solution is simple. Stop having unfunded tax cuts.

There is a republican strategy (which works VERY well) called "strategic deficits." The idea is basically:

Cut taxes, claiming that it will spur the economy, and putting an "expiration date" on them
The tax cuts will not do what they is claimed they will (increase GDP thereby increasing tax revenue) but instead they will create a huge budget deficit
Use that budget deficit to claim a budget crisis and leverage spending cuts to shrink the government (except defense of course)
When the tax cuts reach their expiration, claim that letting them expire is raising taxes, and that they should be made permanent

This is EXACTLY what is going on now and has been going on since 1980 when Reagan took office. Look at the national debt figures.

The one exception was during the Clinton era when there were moderate tax increases to ensure a balanced budget.

So the solution is easy. Since wealth individual tax cuts DON'T create jobs, nor do they increase GDP, we let the Bush era tax cuts expire, as they should have, and kick up tax receipts.

Give a federal tax CREDIT for all individuals' state taxes spent (up to $2000), encouraging middle class spending, the driving force of the economy, and job creation.

Create a 0% tax bracket for capital gains on investments held 20+ years (retirement funds and the like)
Have a 15% bracket on capital gains on investments of 10-20 years
and have all other capital gains taxed as income.

Cut waste from the defense budget and close many overseas bases.

place income requirements on medicare

Once the budget is balanced, and the debt has largely been repaid, use a surplus to fund tax cuts.

here is also an aside as to why cutting wealthy individuals/corporate taxes does not create jobs:

The SOLE job of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Every action it undertakes MUST be to this end, otherwise the corporation is not doing its job and management of that corporation should be changed.

Therefore, a corporation will ONLY create a job if it contributes to the net profits of the corporation. If a job will not increase profits, the corporation MUST NOT create that job.

On the flip side, if a job WILL increase profits (regardless of how much those profits are taxed, or the degree to which the job will increase profits) the corporation MUST create the job (with priority set to the jobs that will create the most profit)

Therefore, job creation is driven by gross profits, not net profits, and the tax rate (as long as it is not 100%) should not impede the hiring of employees.

It is the corporations responsibility to find capital, either by borrowing, from cash on the books, or from new investors, to make all of the profit driving hires.

So when does a job create profit for the company? Simple, if the company is not meeting demand for the product, jobs that will increase supply will increase profits. If a company is not meeting demand, there is much more limited opportunity for job creation, limited to only jobs that MAY spur demand (marketing and such, which is usually from outside firms any way)

So, the only way to increase jobs is to increase gross profits (which are unaffected by tax rates) and the surest way to increase gross profit driving jobs is to spur demand.

In this way, they government should adopt policies that focus foremost on increasing the size and spending and investment power of the middle class, as well as making sure lending is accessible to corporations that need it.

Increasing the spending and investment power of the upper class does not drive demand in the same way the middle class does, nor does increasing corporate net profits increase hiring.


The problem with that "theory" is that it is not based in reality:

 

 

Tax revenues have remained fairly consistent regardless of tax rates, while spending has steadily climbed. The high deficits are a result of irresponsible spending and cannot be resolved by increasing taxes because, as we have seen over several decades, increasing tax rates will not result in increased tax revenue.



Around the Network

It bugged me how he implied that this was the Democrats' fault.



Love and tolerate.

Salnax said:
It bugged me how he implied that this was the Democrats' fault.


Yeah, I know. 

 

I still love Obama though. 

 



Yay!!!

HappySqurriel said:
kanageddaamen said:
The solution is simple. Stop having unfunded tax cuts.

There is a republican strategy (which works VERY well) called "strategic deficits." The idea is basically:

Cut taxes, claiming that it will spur the economy, and putting an "expiration date" on them
The tax cuts will not do what they is claimed they will (increase GDP thereby increasing tax revenue) but instead they will create a huge budget deficit
Use that budget deficit to claim a budget crisis and leverage spending cuts to shrink the government (except defense of course)
When the tax cuts reach their expiration, claim that letting them expire is raising taxes, and that they should be made permanent

This is EXACTLY what is going on now and has been going on since 1980 when Reagan took office. Look at the national debt figures.

The one exception was during the Clinton era when there were moderate tax increases to ensure a balanced budget.

So the solution is easy. Since wealth individual tax cuts DON'T create jobs, nor do they increase GDP, we let the Bush era tax cuts expire, as they should have, and kick up tax receipts.

Give a federal tax CREDIT for all individuals' state taxes spent (up to $2000), encouraging middle class spending, the driving force of the economy, and job creation.

Create a 0% tax bracket for capital gains on investments held 20+ years (retirement funds and the like)
Have a 15% bracket on capital gains on investments of 10-20 years
and have all other capital gains taxed as income.

Cut waste from the defense budget and close many overseas bases.

place income requirements on medicare

Once the budget is balanced, and the debt has largely been repaid, use a surplus to fund tax cuts.

here is also an aside as to why cutting wealthy individuals/corporate taxes does not create jobs:

The SOLE job of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Every action it undertakes MUST be to this end, otherwise the corporation is not doing its job and management of that corporation should be changed.

Therefore, a corporation will ONLY create a job if it contributes to the net profits of the corporation. If a job will not increase profits, the corporation MUST NOT create that job.

On the flip side, if a job WILL increase profits (regardless of how much those profits are taxed, or the degree to which the job will increase profits) the corporation MUST create the job (with priority set to the jobs that will create the most profit)

Therefore, job creation is driven by gross profits, not net profits, and the tax rate (as long as it is not 100%) should not impede the hiring of employees.

It is the corporations responsibility to find capital, either by borrowing, from cash on the books, or from new investors, to make all of the profit driving hires.

So when does a job create profit for the company? Simple, if the company is not meeting demand for the product, jobs that will increase supply will increase profits. If a company is not meeting demand, there is much more limited opportunity for job creation, limited to only jobs that MAY spur demand (marketing and such, which is usually from outside firms any way)

So, the only way to increase jobs is to increase gross profits (which are unaffected by tax rates) and the surest way to increase gross profit driving jobs is to spur demand.

In this way, they government should adopt policies that focus foremost on increasing the size and spending and investment power of the middle class, as well as making sure lending is accessible to corporations that need it.

Increasing the spending and investment power of the upper class does not drive demand in the same way the middle class does, nor does increasing corporate net profits increase hiring.


The problem with that "theory" is that it is not based in reality:

 

 

Tax revenues have remained fairly consistent regardless of tax rates, while spending has steadily climbed. The high deficits are a result of irresponsible spending and cannot be resolved by increasing taxes because, as we have seen over several decades, increasing tax rates will not result in increased tax revenue.


But your graphs show they do, as long as the increases are not punitive.  Look at the tax revenue increase in the 90s, when there were moderate tax increases, and look at them plummit after the bush tax cuts and obama tax cuts which have not contributed to GDP growth, most notably the income tax revenue dropping nearly 50% from the the late 90s until now, when taxes are at historical lows.

You are also framing the tax revenue as percentage of GDP, which make it seem as if they are "holding steady" when in reality a 5% swing is massive in real dollars.

 

and since we are talking about income and corporate tax rates, everything else in that graph is noise that muddies the issue.



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

SamuelRSmith said:
SvennoJ said:

Yeah get rid of social security and health care, see how that works out.

Sure there are people that try to abuse the system, but it's not just there for entitlement. Free healthcare for all might actually be cheaper in the long run. Saves a hell of a lot of paperwork, and people don't postpone until it becomes an emergency.

How come corporate income tax is only 5%? Are there so few American based companies left?


That's the oddest argument I've ever seen for public health care. The NHS, the most comprehensive public health system in the world, is so bogged down by paperwork that you literally can't move for the stuff.

Maybe that's a problem with the NHS.
I was referring to the differences between US and Canadian health care. Canada spends about half as much per capita on health care as the US government, yet here it's free for all.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/05/us-health-care-system-less-efficient-study

Researchers found U.S. physician practices spend almost four times as much money and 10 times as many hours on paperwork than Canadian ones do.

"The Canadian system is by no means perfect and often gets a lot of criticism, but there are points in time where we have to sit back and say our system does allow access for people and does provide quality care and it does deliver it in an efficient fashion compared to the U.S.," Dr. Dante Morra, lead author of the study, told QMI Agency.

American practices spend $83,000 per doctor every year dealing with health insurers and other payers, whereas Ontario only doles out $22,000, according to the study published in the journal Health Affairs.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel said:
Entitlement spending is (typically) voted in with the best of intentions, and makes the problems it was designed to fix dramatically worse over time. The reason for this is that these programs are designed to address the symptoms of a problem and there is almost no consideration of the reaction the social program will have.

If we stopped paying people not to work, subsidizing companies for paying employees below living wages, increasing costs on companies for paying reasonable wages, and taxing efficiency and success all the people who currently receive government handouts could be working to achieve as high (or higher) standard of living.

 Even in a very healthy economy there is 5-6% unemployment. Those people would be screwed without government handouts.

Edit: Also several of the economies with the best standard of living in the world have large amounts of spending on things like pensions, public healthcare and unemployment benefits. The fact is that when this spending is well administered it can work very well, when it's poorly administered it works awfully.



Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
Entitlement spending is (typically) voted in with the best of intentions, and makes the problems it was designed to fix dramatically worse over time. The reason for this is that these programs are designed to address the symptoms of a problem and there is almost no consideration of the reaction the social program will have.

If we stopped paying people not to work, subsidizing companies for paying employees below living wages, increasing costs on companies for paying reasonable wages, and taxing efficiency and success all the people who currently receive government handouts could be working to achieve as high (or higher) standard of living.

 Even in a very healthy economy there is 5-6% unemployment. Those people would be screwed without government handouts.

Also note that Social Security, the largest entitlement program, has not added a single dollar of debt, and is in fact raided annually for funding other programs.



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

HappySqurriel said:

 

 

Tax revenues have remained fairly consistent regardless of tax rates, while spending has steadily climbed. The high deficits are a result of irresponsible spending and cannot be resolved by increasing taxes because, as we have seen over several decades, increasing tax rates will not result in increased tax revenue.

And please, don't talk to me about reality.  I just checked your sources and you are comparing TOTAL government spending (State, local, federal) against FEDERAL tax revenues.

I love how the right wing, when their theories don't hold, fudge facts to make it look like they do.

According to the actual numbers, the FEDERAL percentage of GDP spending (you know, what we are actually talking about) ihas been fairly steady for the last 40 years (in fact it is lower now than under Reagan)

 

When you try to fudge things like this, all you do is shine a light on your hypocracy



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

SvennoJ said:

Yeah get rid of social security and health care, see how that works out.

Sure there are people that try to abuse the system, but it's not just there for entitlement. Free healthcare for all might actually be cheaper in the long run. Saves a hell of a lot of paperwork, and people don't postpone until it becomes an emergency.

How come corporate income tax is only 5%? Are there so few American based companies left?


You do realize that Brazil (home of that picture) is a heavy regulated leftist state, right? Free health care in America wouldn't be cheaper. We have far deeper, systemic problems that drive up the cost of care that would still be there even if we had a universal-type health care system.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
Entitlement spending is (typically) voted in with the best of intentions, and makes the problems it was designed to fix dramatically worse over time. The reason for this is that these programs are designed to address the symptoms of a problem and there is almost no consideration of the reaction the social program will have.

If we stopped paying people not to work, subsidizing companies for paying employees below living wages, increasing costs on companies for paying reasonable wages, and taxing efficiency and success all the people who currently receive government handouts could be working to achieve as high (or higher) standard of living.

 Even in a very healthy economy there is 5-6% unemployment. Those people would be screwed without government handouts.

Edit: Also several of the economies with the best standard of living in the world have large amounts of spending on things like pensions, public healthcare and unemployment benefits. The fact is that when this spending is well administered it can work very well, when it's poorly administered it works awfully.


At (or below) 5% unemployment you're considered to have a labour shortage because there are always some people who are voluntarily (or not) between jobs but will rapidly find another job ...

Now, social programs can be administered efficiently but this can never happen when the goal of the social program is to produce more equitable outcomes. If a society decides that it is important that every child obtains a decent education then a system can be created to produce good results at a reasonable cost and if the quality is too low or the costs are too high the political will can be found to fix the problems; in contrast, if the programs are designed to eliminate inequality than any questioning of the program will be rejected as an attack on the poor (and the system will steadily grow more expensive and the quality will steadily drop).