how about if they tax the top 1% of American earners by like 10% more. That has to bring in the cash easy, seeing as like 90% of the money belongs to the top 10% or something.
Its pretty plain and simple. Raise taxes and cut spending. But doing either of those during a particularly bad recession is not a good idea.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
legalize pot and tax it twice as much as cigs
but also institute harsher punishments for violations that involve it, like driving while under the influence
crack down of traffic violations and increases ticket able fines
become a frugal government
instead of spending 100s on a pen go to staples and spend 10 on a bag of them
put in place the fair tax plan that calls for tax on all sold goods, that way its not just legal citizens that are paying for the right to live n this country, and not just a small part of our working, rich, and poor class
decrease federal aid for unemployed and limit its ability to be gotten, make people work for the hand out if they are not going to work for themselves
highway - So the rich should be taxed more than what they earn?
I don't think that's a fair system. It'd be far more efficient to close loopholes that allow the rich to glide by without paying, as opposed to taxing those that do.
When Regan dropped tax rates on the wealthy, tax income went up. Why? Lowering taxes on the rich has a reverse effect: the lower they are, the more inclined they are to pay them. I think we need to just fix the issue of people being inclined, or not incline to pay taxes, and find ways to tax them without being able to avoid their taxes.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
| mesoteto said: put in place the fair tax plan that calls for tax on all sold goods, that way its not just legal citizens that are paying for the right to live n this country, and not just a small part of our working, rich, and poor class. |
Woot. Fair Tax. See the sig. ^_^
| mrstickball said: highway - So the rich should be taxed more than what they earn? I don't think that's a fair system. It'd be far more efficient to close loopholes that allow the rich to glide by without paying, as opposed to taxing those that do. When Regan dropped tax rates on the wealthy, tax income went up. Why? Lowering taxes on the rich has a reverse effect: the lower they are, the more inclined they are to pay them. I think we need to just fix the issue of people being inclined, or not incline to pay taxes, and find ways to tax them without being able to avoid their taxes. |
Of course revenue went up...the economy was growing and there were more taxable dollars out there. If a pool of water gets bigger, and you take out the same percentage of water from the pool as you did before, you will get more water. The same applies when a country's population naturally grows. Your tax base is larger, thus collecting the same percentage of taxes means your revenue amount will be higher.
And revenue can go up in a dollar amount without real revenue actually increasing. Its called inflation.
The most recent Nobel Prize winner in Economics wrote a good little blurb about this.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/
Ah - commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:
Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.
Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.
Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.
Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.
But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.
Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.
Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero
Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
Here is the original article from the same guy:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-revenues-another-history-lesson/
One thing I’m hearing a lot lately is the old line that tax cuts actually increase revenues, sometimes accompanied by a few out-of-context numbers. So a bit more history plus chart on all that.
The important thing to realize, when looking at the history of federal revenues, is that they tend to grow over time even if there is no change in policy. One reason is inflation; another is growing population; a third is long-run economic growth.
It’s easy to correct for the first two; a bit harder to correct for growth, since part of what’s at issue is whether tax cuts do wonderful things for growth. So the chart below shows real federal revenue per capita — specifically, revenue in thousands of 2000 dollars per person — since 1993. All data from BEA.
What you see is that there was a huge revenue increase during the Clinton years. There was also the much-touted revenue surge of the later Bush years, but this followed a spectacular revenue plunge earlier. At this point real revenue per capita is only slightly higher than it was at the end of the 1990s. That’s actually abnormal: given the long-term growth of the US economy, we should have expected a continuing upward trend in revenues per capita.
Overall, the graph suggests that yes, Virginia, cutting taxes reduces revenue. But it also tells us that stuff happens: the stock bubble inflated revenues in the late 90s, the collapse of that bubble hit revenues thereafter, then the housing bubble did its thing, and so on.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
Actual data tends to agree with my statement, Akuma.
Look at the % of taxes paid by the Top 1% to Top 10% income groups - they increased rapidly after the ERTA was passed. This chart isn't about total revenue, but the distribution, as per my point (lower taxes reduce tax avoidance by the well-to-do)
The chart shows that revenue from the Top 1%, 5%, and 10% all increased under Reagan. I'm not talking just about tax receipts going up under Reagan, but the skewing of where the money came from.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
| akuma587 said: Its pretty plain and simple. Raise taxes and cut spending. But doing either of those during a particularly bad recession is not a good idea. |
This is 100% true. It’s just that simple.
So, why is our spending double and tripling, and our taxes staying the same or lowering?
And why is doing it a good idea? If it’s not, how should we avoid it?
My opinion is to not spend more money, and collect more taxes (the opposite of what this administration is doing).
P.S. before anyone complains that Bush did the same thing, I agree, but there is nothing Bush can do about it now.
| mrstickball said: Actual data tends to agree with my statement, Akuma.
The chart shows that revenue from the Top 1%, 5%, and 10% all increased under Reagan. I'm not talking just about tax receipts going up under Reagan, but the skewing of where the money came from. |
Percentages are all well and good, but percentages =/ actual and real revenue. You can be collecting a higher percentage of revenue from the rich BUT STILL be collecting less money from them than you would otherwise. A higher percentage does not mean more revenue. And that is where your logic is ultimately flawed.
Let's say you are taking 50% of 100 - that is 50. Now let's say you are taking 60% of 70 - that is 42. The percentage was higher (percentage revenue), but the actual number was lower (actual revenue) because you shrunk the amount of taxable income. A higher percentage does not mean more revenue overall. That's basic algebra.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
