Tax Cuts and Job Creation

[NotNow]

I agree with most of your statement DW.  Except for the "kind of government most people want".   I believe that if you actually told the public the truth about the cost to them for many government programs, they would just say no.  Claiming such things as insuring tens of millions of people for no cost is a good bit of our problem.

[BridgeTroll]

Our taxes are too low to support the kind of government that most people want and the military we have built and the wars we are in.  This has been true for a couple of decades now.  The problem is simple.  It's the solutions that are hard.

If it has been true for a couple of decades then my premise is correct.  The problem is quite obviously bi partisan.  Over those thirty years we have had democrat and republican presidents and democrat and republican majorities in congress.

BOTH sides have had opportunities to raise taxes... or lower spending... and neither side does it.

Like Stephen suggested... we have been served too much ex lax by the only restaurant in town...

[NotNow]

It is actually an economic theory...that your party has signed onto.  As stated previously, we could all point to graphs of points in time that might support on way or another, but really it is about perception.  And BOTH parties subscribe to this theory at least in part.  The Dems have avoided raising the income tax rate ostensibly because of this reason, and the President quoted this theory when he extended the "tax cuts".  Like any theory, this one is true because all of the practicing participants BELIEVE that it is true. 

I eagerly await the tax proposal that YOU have in mind.  Oh but you have already posted that haven't you?   90% taxation anyone?

so are you saying that there is NO evidence to support this 'theory'?

No, I am saying that the fact that the actual practitioners of macro economics subscribe to the theory.  That in itself is evidence.

[manasia]

It is actually an economic theory...that your party has signed onto.  As stated previously, we could all point to graphs of points in time that might support on way or another, but really it is about perception.  And BOTH parties subscribe to this theory at least in part.  The Dems have avoided raising the income tax rate ostensibly because of this reason, and the President quoted this theory when he extended the "tax cuts".  Like any theory, this one is true because all of the practicing participants BELIEVE that it is true. 

I eagerly await the tax proposal that YOU have in mind.  Oh but you have already posted that haven't you?   90% taxation anyone?

so are you saying that there is NO evidence to support this 'theory'?

No, I am saying that the fact that the actual practitioners of macro economics subscribe to the theory.  That in itself is evidence.

but not hard evidence connected to actual events?

Just because someone subscribes to something, does not mean it works. If something works, especially something as quantifiable as results from tax cuts, then would post evidence of it.

If their was real evidence for it, we would not be having this discussion.

I believe in MMT  - Modern Monetary Theory, I enjoy it, but can I show you evidence that it works, no not really. I can show you theories, but I cannot produce any evidence that it actually works, because it is not practiced that much by modern governments.

Tax Cuts have been practiced, and yet not even the CBO, BLS, or any proponent of them can display evidence that they work.

[NotNow]

So what do you propose?  I oppose confiscatory taxes base on principle and fairness.  I don't like the income tax and I believe that ALL citizens should contribute to the society.

[manasia]

So what do you propose?  I oppose conficatory taxes base on principle and fairness.  I don't like the income tax and I believe that ALL citizens should contribute to the society.

Taxation is a challenging Subject. I prefer a flat tax, and total abolition of the IRS tax code. But I wonder if a Flat Tax can really provide the revenue streams, that are required by government.

[NotNow]

"What is required by the government" is a lot of the debate as well, isn't it?  And all of the calls to "pay for the wars" would be answered with a balanced budget amendment, wouldn't they?

And people who beleive as I do would say "What is authorized for the government to do."

[Dog Walker]

NN, under the constraints of a balanced budget amendment, in a national emergency like WWII, taxes would have to be so high that it would be an economy and jobs killer.  A government just has to be able to borrow at certain times for security and economic reasons.  Remember War Bonds?

Absolutely agree that we are borrowing to much for general operating expenses and a couple of "off the books" wars.  Why were they put off the books anyway?  Don't I remember some talk from Dick Cheney about the Iraq war paying for itself with the revenues from Iraqi oil?

[NotNow]

Agreed that there will have to be an exception for emergency and agreement on a definition of that. 

I don't remember Cheney or anyone else in government talking about seizing Iraqi oil.  We tried the Marshall plan and it didn't work again.  I wonder when we will put that practice to rest.

[Dog Walker]

The Marshall Plan DID work the first time because it was financing a well educated, experienced, civil society that simply needed some money to rebuild after the war.  It was a smashing success then.  We were nation rebuilding.  There were nations there already.

NONE of those conditions applied to Iraq or Afghanistan.  Trying to nation build in those places is/was absolutely foolish.  Remember the punch line of the old joke, "and it just irritates the donkey" ?

[Dog Walker]

This just posted on Politico by Sen. Bill Nelson:

Close the tax loopholes

   
We have to put the country back on the path to fiscal sanity, the author writes.
By SEN. BILL NELSON | 8/10/11 4:41 AM EDT

After watching Standard & Poor’s performance in the Enron and housing debacles, it’s hard to stomach their decision to downgrade America’s credit.

But even coming from S&P, there is a message we should hear: The finger pointing and hyper-partisanship has to stop. If it doesn’t, we really will be on the road to ruin.

Democrats need to see tea partiers as something other than debt-limit hostage-taking Republicans. And Republicans need to see President Barack Obama and Democrats as something other than big-spending socialists.

We’ve got to stop this attack madness. We have to bring civility back to the public square. We have to put the country back on the path to fiscal sanity.

To do that, we need to cut some $4 trillion to $5 trillion. We made a down payment on this with the $2 trillion dollars we cut just last week. Now we need to go further.

To understand what we have to do, though, we first need to look at how we got here.

We went from a $236 billion budget surplus in 2000 to a $1.3 trillion deficit last year â€" and a record $14 trillion debt.

A huge chunk of the debt comes from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re bringing the troops home.

Another significant piece stems from the Bush-era tax cuts. Warren Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway, says the tax cuts for the wealthy should be left to expire. They’re set to do so at the end of next year. We should let that happen.

Agree or not, don’t you think most Americans were better off before the tax cuts than they are now?

Much of the rest of the debt comes from the economic downturn since 2008.

That brings us to today. And there’s no mystery about what we have to do. It’s just common sense. In addition to the spending cuts Congress just made, we need tax reform.

And by tax reform, I mean closing loopholes, special interest tax breaks and corporate subsidies. It’s just plain wrong to be protecting tax breaks for oil companies and to be rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas.

As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee’s Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth Subcommittee, I’ve scheduled a hearing for early September to investigate closing many of these loopholes. Doing so will likely generate $2 trillion over the next decade. Add that to the $2 trillion in spending cuts we’ve made â€" and we’re in the $4 trillion range that we need to hit.

It’s time to stop the shouting and bickering and political attacks. It’s time to show the world that America can take care of business.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) is a member of the Senate Finance and Budget committees.

[buckethead]

So what do you propose?  I oppose conficatory taxes base on principle and fairness.  I don't like the income tax and I believe that ALL citizens should contribute to the society.

Taxation is a challenging Subject. I prefer a flat tax, and total abolition of the IRS tax code. But I wonder if a Flat Tax can really provide the revenue streams, that are required by government.

yes

[MusicMan]

RESTATING THE FACTS: Since 1980 wages for the bottom 90% of Americans has paralleled inflation.
This means your salary does not buy any more now than it did then, even though the amount of the check has gotten bigger. So have your bills. BUT the TOP 10% have grown their paychecks and their wealth exponentially.
That greater economic power allows them access to Politicians, which allows them access to policy. They can get tax policy to work in their favor. This has been a constant since Reagan's presidency.  "Citizens United" has unleashed floodgates of money into our political process, further corrupting it. AND the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court made it happen, further erroding most folks trust in the Judiciary.

FINALLY: If the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy actually created jobs our economy would be blazing right now.
10 years and $1.5 billion (in tax cuts ) later, it didn't work and our economy is smoldering.

[Clem1029]

FINALLY: If the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy actually created jobs our economy would be blazing right now.
10 years and $1.5 billion (in tax cuts ) later, it didn't work and our economy is smoldering.

Perhaps you could help me out here...is there a point where someone suggests that tax policy occurs in a vacuum? Because if not, you are after nothing more than a straw man...

[NotNow]

OK, so you think that the US should have seized Iraqi oil as payment?  DW's point (I think) was that Iraqi oil should have paid for the war there.  I just didn't recall the formal proposal.  Of course, neither the Bush or Obama administrations have chosen to do this, but if you are for it, OK.