View Full Version : Tax and spend
mikeb
03-27-2007, 09:00 AM
Saw on drudge this AM an interesting link to a document claiming higher taxes are on the way because of the dems.
http://budget.house.gov/republicans/press/2007/pr20070322b.pdf
Of course, some will discount the document because of the source.
However, it is thought provoking. Perhaps we can have a factual, civil discussion about the affects of changes in the tax law without getting into bush bashing and tax cuts for the rich rhetoric.
Discuss :)
rwrankin
03-27-2007, 09:57 AM
Saw on drudge this AM an interesting link to a document claiming higher taxes are on the way because of the dems.
http://budget.house.gov/republicans/press/2007/pr20070322b.pdf
Of course, some will discount the document because of the source.
However, it is thought provoking. Perhaps we can have a factual, civil discussion about the affects of changes in the tax law without getting into bush bashing and tax cuts for the rich rhetoric.
Discuss :)
fact.
we have a deficit.
fact.
in order to offset the deficit we have to raise taxes or sale assets.
i think it would be hard to get into specifics without pointing fingers.
fact.
we have a deficit.
fact.
in order to offset the deficit we have to raise taxes or sale assets.
i think it would be hard to get into specifics without pointing fingers.
You can also increase the tax base in order to bring in more revenue.
If you can't get your "facts" straight then shut up while the adults talk and just listen. You may learn something.
How bad is it to have a deficit? How does it factor into national economics? Is there a "happy middle" economy wise?
IMO we don't really want a deficit. And the only time you should have debt is when you are trying to make money off of the leverage it affords.
As for our current situation, I'd like to remind anyone over 30 years old to think back to the 1980s, remember when everyone said that "our grandchildren will inherit our debts". That was the drama filled battlecry of Democrats during that time. That went away real quick in the 1990s. The same thing will happen again.
Casper
03-27-2007, 10:15 AM
Capital is not a finite resource. The deficit represents a lag in production of capital. You have to make it up, but you can't just print money, that creates inflation; you can't maintain a constant money supply either because that creates stagflation. In some ways the US deficit drives a large part of the global economy. By consuming more, we create more capital growth.
rwrankin
03-27-2007, 10:47 AM
IMO we don't really want a deficit. And the only time you should have debt is when you are trying to make money off of the leverage it affords.
As for our current situation, I'd like to remind anyone over 30 years old to think back to the 1980s, remember when everyone said that "our grandchildren will inherit our debts". That was the drama filled battlecry of Democrats during that time. That went away real quick in the 1990s. The same thing will happen again.
really so the a surplus/deficit is not a factor in GDP?
really so the a surplus/deficit is not a factor in GDP?
What? Are you trying to say something intelligent? Get your head out of your ass and learn to fucking type.
rwrankin
03-27-2007, 10:56 AM
How bad is it to have a deficit? How does it factor into national economics? Is there a "happy middle" economy wise?
my economics is not as fluid as others but surplus/deficit is one of many factors in determining GDP. GDP is used to determine the state of the economy and rather we should empliment fiscal policy to raise or lower instrest rates to stimulate spending in the economy to bring out of ression or to balance it to prevent inflation.
rwrankin
03-27-2007, 11:02 AM
What? Are you trying to say something intelligent? Get your head out of your ass and learn to fucking type.
can we not discuss a topic without morons like you making comments? do you even know what GDP is?
can we not discuss a topic without morons like you making comments? do you even know what GDP is?
You can't even type a fucking sentence, yet I am the moron. Do you know what GDP is? I mean besides that shit you typed out above that came straight from a textbook?
46Tbird
03-27-2007, 11:12 AM
I don't think either of you knows who the HMFIC is.
I don't think either of you knows who the HMFIC is.
Head Mother Fucker in Charge is me, didn't you get the memo?
46Tbird
03-27-2007, 11:16 AM
Must have been attached to my TPS reports.
rwrankin
03-27-2007, 11:17 AM
You can't even type a fucking sentence, yet I am the moron. Do you know what GDP is? I mean besides that shit you typed out above that came straight from a textbook?
dude i am not going to waist my time and energy on a piece of crap like you.
mikeb
03-27-2007, 11:17 AM
As a small business owner the way I look at it is that a higher taxes represent money that is not available to me to go toward capital expenditures such as factory, machinery, floor space, technical training, and employees (hire/raises). For most small businesses extra profit made available by a reduction in taxes is generally plowed right back into the business as opposed to the popular notion that business owners are pocketing it.
I own my own business and I can tell you firsthand that higher taxes in my case will result in me at a business level spending less on things I don't absolutely have to have. This means stretching old equipment longer, not hiring, not investing in long term assets that will not bring immediate financial results, and so on. I'm hunkered down. Same on the personal level. Since my take home will be less then we'll be stretching the dollar there as well.
Net result is that less money will be moving thru my business and personal life into the general economy, and more will be moving to the government.
Now multiply that by the number of small business owners and consumers in the US and you begin to see the issue. Money quits moving. When money does not move then sales tax revenues fall as do business income taxes, making it necessary to raise taxes again. And so on.
46Tbird
03-27-2007, 11:25 AM
dude i am not going to waist my time and energy on a piece of crap like you.He is asking you legit questions.
Do you know what you're talking about? I have my doubts. WASTE your time and energy on a piece of crap like me, tell me what GDP has to do with the deficit.
slow99
03-27-2007, 11:27 AM
dude i am not going to waist my time and energy on a piece of crap like you.
You should spend your time curled up with a dictionary.
dude i am not going to waist my time and energy on a piece of crap like you.
How about wasting your time and energy? Could you do that you fucking moron?
You are going to lecture us all on economics but you don't know the difference between "waste" and "waist".
Get the fuck over yourself already, douche bag, at best you are a fucking idiot.
He is asking you legit questions.
Do you know what you're talking about? I have my doubts. WASTE your time and energy on a piece of crap like me, tell me what GDP has to do with the deficit.
He'll have a response as soon as he is done googling it.
Casper
03-27-2007, 11:40 AM
A is A.
;)
rwrankin
03-27-2007, 11:40 AM
He is asking you legit questions.
Do you know what you're talking about? I have my doubts. WASTE your time and energy on a piece of crap like me, tell me what GDP has to do with the deficit.
sorry i am at work trying to two things at once if i remember right.
since you asked nicely.
gdp= consumption + investment + government spending+ (exports-imports)
government spending is consisted of variables such as govern purchases, inflation, and taxes.
now that i think it about i had the coralation wrong. gdp determines if we are in surplus/ deficit. we implement fiscal spending to try to stimulate growth to increase gdp. is that right? been a while since micro and macro.
rwrankin
03-27-2007, 11:42 AM
How about wasting your time and energy? Could you do that you fucking moron?
You are going to lecture us all on economics but you don't know the difference between "waste" and "waist".
Get the fuck over yourself already, douche bag, at best you are a fucking idiot.
dude, the fact that you are a keyboard warrior insulting people behind the security of a monitor proves that you are a coward. you might have intelegent thoughts but i can not respect someone who acts like this.
rwrankin
03-27-2007, 11:55 AM
He is asking you legit questions.
Do you know what you're talking about? I have my doubts. WASTE your time and energy on a piece of crap like me, tell me what GDP has to do with the deficit.
so the fact that under current tax policy over the past 8 years we have been recieving less revenue threw taxes and increased borrowing to pay for the war. these factors increased the deficit. this is some of the factors to why we need to raise taxes. we have to generate more revenue threw the rise in taxes or selling of assets. the other option is to try to stimulate capital growth. but passed efforts have resulted in lowering the taxes on corps and industry to incourage growth and this is what got us int he difict in the first place. is this right?
Casper
03-27-2007, 12:06 PM
You obviously didn't listen.
You can't spend your way out of debt. But you can leverage debt to become future capital.
dude, the fact that you are a keyboard warrior insulting people behind the security of a monitor proves that you are a coward. you might have intelegent thoughts but i can not respect someone who acts like this.
I don't need the security of a keyboard to insult you. You can come on over to:
1400 Pagewynne
Plano, TX
And I'll insult you right to your face with no problem whatsoever. I hope you can talk better than you can type. What time can I expect you tonight?
so the fact that under current tax policy over the past 8 years we have been recieving less revenue threw taxes and increased borrowing to pay for the war. these factors increased the deficit. this is some of the factors to why we need to raise taxes. we have to generate more revenue threw the rise in taxes or selling of assets. the other option is to try to stimulate capital growth. but passed efforts have resulted in lowering the taxes on corps and industry to incourage growth and this is what got us int he difict in the first place. is this right?
Or we could reduce spending. Of course you didn't think of that though because you haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
rwrankin
03-27-2007, 01:03 PM
Or we could reduce spending. Of course you didn't think of that though because you haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
yes. yes. i could be wrong but even if we cut all the fiscal spending it would hardly put a scratch on a multitrilion dollar defisit. wouldnt the effects of cutting fiscal spending create more issues than resolved? i think so. thats why i did not mention it.
46Tbird
03-27-2007, 01:10 PM
so the fact that under current tax policy over the past 8 years we have been recieving less revenue threw taxes and increased borrowing to pay for the war. these factors increased the deficit. this is some of the factors to why we need to raise taxes. we have to generate more revenue threw the rise in taxes or selling of assets. the other option is to try to stimulate capital growth. but passed efforts have resulted in lowering the taxes on corps and industry to incourage growth and this is what got us int he difict in the first place. is this right?Selling of assets? Liquidating fixed assets is not on the government's to-do list. They just decommission shit and either donate or destroy it.
Ever consider just .... spending less? Do we really need all the services provided by our federal government?
Countries do NOT tax themselves into prosperity. It's never happened.
Your chronic misuse and misspelling of words is hilarious...
yes. yes. i could be wrong but even if we cut all the fiscal spending it would hardly put a scratch on a multitrilion dollar defisit. wouldnt the effects of cutting fiscal spending create more issues than resolved? i think so. thats why i did not mention it.
Wouldn't any logical sane policy start spending as much as the country takes in before trying to reduce the debt? I mean, really....
99SVTour
03-27-2007, 03:58 PM
I have an idea, how about we cut back spending on stupid things(social programs and ignorant pet projects of certain government officials) rather than trying to increase income to pay for these things.
I have an idea, how about we cut back spending on stupid things(social programs and ignorant pet projects of certain government officials) rather than trying to increase income to pay for these things.
Cue the stories of old people eating dog food and homeless people eating from trash cans.....
32VfromHell
03-27-2007, 05:02 PM
we just need to spend less. Obviously, the war on terrorism in the middle east is extremely expensive, but then again, the economic cost of an attack on US Soil would crush consumer and foreign investor confidence in the US market.
Some serious curtailing of pet projects like the 200 million dollar "bridge to nowhere" in alaska and other big pork barrelling projects are not what we need. I think a lot can be accomplished with a little frugality by the major government institutions here, rather than major items like shutting down military bases and other staples of budget-minded legislature.
Mustangman_2000
03-27-2007, 11:59 PM
there are various approaches to reducing the significant deficit we currently have.
increasing taxes is one such common approach that was proven to work under the clinton administration. he left office with a surplus instead of a deficit.
it's just a difference in political philosophy.
perhaps, something in the middle ground of a republican and democratic strategy to address the deficit would be ideal. albeit...difficult.
Walsted
03-28-2007, 01:22 AM
Hmmm, judging from the above discussion, I must have missed a few things in some of my classes, or maybe I am used to different terms than others. Please tell me where I am wrong-
On the issue of tax rates - If we have 100% tax, all the money goes to the government, there is no money to spend, thus no production, and in the end, no revenue for the government. If we have a 0% tax rate, there is plenty of money to spend which would somehow get taxed at 0%, the remander of which goes to others to spend and get taxed at 0%, etc., but still no money goes to the government since the tax rate is 0% . Somewhere in between is a tax rate (I'll refer to as X, and let X represent all tax rates for all government sources of revenue) that maximizes government revenue. At rate X, X% goes to the government, and (100-x)% goes for more goods and services, which get taxed at rate X, and the remainder goes for more goods and services which then get taxed at rate X, etc., with the cycle continuing as long as it can. The lower X is, the more often the cycle can complete for each original dollar spent. The trick is finding out what X is. If X is too high, the cycle ends before the optimal amount can be collected by the government. If X is too low, the amount collected for a given amount of economic activity will be sub-optimal. Thus, raising or lowering taxes is not automatically the answer unless you have already figured out how X is sub-optimal. If the tax rate is too high, cutting the rates (as during the Reagan and George W years,) increases overall spending, and the amount of tax revenue goes up. Raising the rate when it isn't too low (as during the Carter and George HW years) causes overall revenue to go down. Can't really pin the rate on a specific president, though, since Congress is involved.
I think some folks have debt and deficit mixed up, and think budgets are cumulative. If you owe, that is debt. If you have budgeted to spend more than you will take in, that is deficit. The government's budget is just a plan on how the money will come in and go out in a given year. In governments, budgets are just a spending plan, not the actual account with the money. Some of the budgets during Clinton's terms did not have a deficit, (the government took in more that year than was planned, and less was planned to go out,) but when Clinton left office, the US still had a significant debt, like presidents before and after. I'm not sure, but I think the Congress was authorizing a lot of "off-budget" spending, similar to what was occurring during the allegedly budget balancing Graham-Rudman years so they could all feel good about having a balanced budget while still spending more than came in. Not 100% sure on that one, though. Consequently, Clinton did not leave a surplus. The budget had a surplus at times, but at the end of each year, that budget was done, it was time to start anew, and the US still carried a debt.
Given the above, I believe that we need to reduce wasteful spending, not raise taxes. The trick is to figure out what spending is wasteful and get Congress to omit it from the budget. It would probably be a lot easier to get a ricer with a FWD car to ditch the useless spoiler, though. I support a line-item veto for spending measures, provided that those items can be overridden like any other veto. It would probably take a constitutional amendment to get that one past the SCOTUS, though, and congresscritters don't want to lose the chance to trade legislation for votes, so I doubt that amendment has a welk's chance in a supernova.
Or I could be wrong and/or way too long winded. If so, please enlighten me.
(Edit - changed from to for and to to too.)
line-em-up
03-30-2007, 05:08 PM
Damn it, guys. I was hoping to learn something here, but it's hard to concentrate with all of the cat fighting. Al P, have you stopped taking your lithium again? :)
OneFastCat
03-30-2007, 05:53 PM
$400 Billion dollar increase was proposed today - the largest in history.
01WhiteCobra
03-30-2007, 06:23 PM
really so the a surplus/deficit is not a factor in GDP?
A deficit only matters in GDP if draws capital away from private investments to government investments.
If you would like more info search for Keynesian macroeconomics theory.
Actually the deficit was down to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 as compared to 2.6% in 2005.
Fox466
03-30-2007, 06:48 PM
I wish I could retain half the information that you smart fuckers impart... :(
line-em-up
03-30-2007, 07:33 PM
I wish I could retain half the information that you smart fuckers impart... :(
x2
White trash wagon
03-30-2007, 08:37 PM
Which is worse?
Tax and spend (Democrats)
Borrow and spend(Republicans)
Discuss
01WhiteCobra
03-30-2007, 09:41 PM
Which is worse?
Tax and spend (Democrats)
Borrow and spend(Republicans)
Discuss
Depends, if borrow and spend doesn't impede private investment it is better than tax and spend. More money goes into the public's hand and hopefully they make private investments.
If borrow and spend does impede private investment it is better to tax and spend.
Really doesn't matter since the savings/investment rate for individuals in this country is pathetic.
White trash wagon
03-31-2007, 09:58 AM
Really doesn't matter since the savings/investment rate for individuals in this country is pathetic.
That's the sad part of your statement, Americans have been conditioned to be rampent consumers for about the last 70-80 years, spending everything they have, to the point of self destruction. And since our economy is now largely dependant on that, any sudden move by consumers to save, not spend, would plunge the US economy into a recession (at a minimum).
Our economy used to grow through exports, now it only grows by us spending money we don't have.
But hey, our government does the same.
Casper
03-31-2007, 11:04 AM
That's because of banking laws and the federal reserve. Schumer and Biden among others.
When the government needs a billion, the fed writes them a check. But they don't cash it, they deposit it; the government after all has to use it to pay salaries, contractors, leases, utilities, etc.
So the fed has a billion. The law says they only have to keep 10% on hand. So they loan out 900 million to 9 banks at 10 mil apiece. The interest rate is the prime, lets say 5% for this exercise. They just created 5% of 900M or 45 million. Poof! Now each of those 9 banks holds onto 9 million and loans out the rest, at say 6%. They created 49 million. Poof! It continues to grow like this. The problem comes from inflation, so the fed tries to control it by dropping the prime. But that just creates a longer string of loans to eventualy reach the class of high risk loans, which can fall flat as we see with cheap mortgages. A big ball of momentum that peaks sharply in cycles.
01WhiteCobra
03-31-2007, 12:11 PM
The problem comes from inflation, so the fed tries to control it by dropping the prime.
By raising.
Casper
03-31-2007, 12:28 PM
Yes, sorry my bad. Raising the prime.
01WhiteCobra
03-31-2007, 02:00 PM
Yes, sorry my bad. Raising the prime.
:D
I was going to suggest you apply for Fed Chairman. Lowering rates in face of inflation isn't thinking out of the box, it is ripping the box up!
TexasDevilDog
03-31-2007, 07:52 PM
But the debt that the US has amassed is immoral. China holds $400 Billions in treasuries. At 5%, the US government gives China $20 Billion a year in interest, about what is spent on NASA.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2007
February $ 24,170,447,266.47
January $ 18,132,425,570.82
December $ 95,908,834,357.10
November $ 20,305,104,412.28
October $ 22,293,168,366.68
Fiscal 2007 Year Total $180,809,979,973.35
Interest payments on the debt are the 3rd biggest expense of the federal government. The $405 Billion spent on interest payments in 2006 is money not available to buy a tank, pay a soldier, help any poor, provide medicine to elderly or "pick your favorite program". <!-- start zFacts Debt Gizmo -->
<table id="zDebtBox">
<tr><td><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.zfacts.com/giz/G05/debt.js"></script></td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://zfacts.com/p/461.html" id='zF05' style="color:black;font-size:12px">The Gross National Debt</a></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- end gizmo -->
:mad:
shrp88lx's
04-01-2007, 12:18 AM
the fact is LOWERING taxes actually RAISE tax revenue for the Govt. the problems then come that with more money coming into the govt, our congress and president then spend that like water instead of lowering the debt/deficit. its plain and simple, we as country need to spend LESS than what we take in!!!
mikeb
04-01-2007, 12:23 AM
the fact is LOWERING taxes actually RAISE tax revenue for the Govt. the problems then come that with more money coming into the govt, our congress and president then spend that like water instead of lowering the debt/deficit. its plain and simple, we as country need to spend LESS than what we take in!!!
The issue I see is that there is no accountability for SPENDING by the government.
Perhaps each of the senators and republicans needs to prepare a budget for their state and that gets voted on by senators and republicans from other states. Maybe that would get rid of the PORK. But we'll never see it :( :mad:
GhostTX
04-02-2007, 09:12 AM
The issue I see is that there is no accountability for SPENDING by the government.
Perhaps each of the senators and republicans needs to prepare a budget for their state and that gets voted on by senators and republicans from other states. Maybe that would get rid of the PORK. But we'll never see it :( :mad:
Seems like a halfway decent idea. But then I think we'd have more "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" stuff.
We need to get rid of career politicians in my opinion. Get back to what the founders originally had in mind...serve a bit, then get back to your real job. I find it hard to believe that we need a career in Congress with all the time they have off...and they don't have to be there to vote on things! :mad: WTF are they getting paid for!??!
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.