The US is insolvent !

"Let's remember the argument here, you are saying there is no effective change in business decisions and practices with a tax increase, I am saying there is. I'm not saying that this effect will be dramatic with any increase, only that it will exist, to what extent, is entirely a matter of how much the increase is."

two quickpoints:
1. I have never said that there is no effective change in business decisions and practices with a tax increase...so claiming that such is MY argument is a blatant lie. Of course businesses alter their business decisions to minimize the negative impact of changing tax rates. My point was that to return to the tax rates on upper level personal income that existed during the Clinton administration would not have a significant negative effect on business.

2. I would assert that for you to suggest that a company "suddenly" going from a $30M profit to a loss on ONE hand and "I'm not saying that this effect will be dramatic" on the OTHER hand is laughable.
 
"Walter E. Williams suggested we should have taxation tied to votes, the people who pay the most in taxes, have the most votes. His reasoning is, this is how every major corporation in America is operated, the shareholders and stockholders control the votes on corporate policy. The people who are investing the money, are the ones who determine how the money is spent. If it makes sense for corporate America, why not the Government?"

that would be an oligarchy, not a democracy and it would be the government by the wealthy for the wealthy...I would think that anyone who expressed such an unAmerican point of view would be considered nothing less than a traitor.
 
uscitizen said:
So at 400% of our GDP does this mean it would take us 400 years to pay off this debt if all growth was directed towards that goal ?
Click to expand...


No. The first thing to consider is, "all growth" is an undetermined factor. We don't know this, and can only make semi-relevant predictions, which are also subject to many uncertainties and contingents. We will assume a positive growth, because this will mean additional revenues to eventually pay down our debt, but this is an assumption.

Apparently, you are assuming an overall average growth of 1% per year, for the next 400 years. These are static numbers you've established as parameters to sustain your argument, they are not representative of the unknown future.

Look... Step One, balance the Federal Budget. Make it a freakin' Constitutional Amendment if you have to! But Balance the Budget!

Step Two... Establish some form of taxation among the people, that is fair and impartial, as well as benevolent to the poor and unfortunate, and stop trying to soak the rich to solve the problem, and create more of a class polarization.

Step Three... When all of this is done, revamp SS and Medicare, revamp all the entitlement programs, insure their solvency by making them solvent in real dollars. Examine the military and defense contracting, and all government contracting for that matter, find ways to eliminate waste, cut old pork out, get rid of things that don't work, have become obsolete, or aren't needed. Aggressively pursue the 'grifters' in the system.

Step Four... watch the debt fall when you have fixed all of the problems contributing to the debt, and can focus your resources on it. At that point, it doesn't matter if your growth IS only 1%, and it DOES take you 400 years! You are effectively reducing the debt, and the benefits of doing this will only help the economic prosperity of the future. Do you get the point? If we are indeed, reducing our real national debt, this is profoundly crucial to eventually paying it off, and it doesn't matter how long it takes. As this happens, even in the beginning, it will strengthen the dollar internationally, it will change our economic status on the global market, and it will increase growth and revenues to our economy as a result, so we see and realize the rewards exponentially as we go. The once impossible looking trillions, soon become billions again, as the dollar continues to grow and prosperity continues to flourish.

There you have it! My Four-Step plan to get rid of the national debt. Of course, it doesn't sound as easy as... Tax those greedy rich bastards! That seems to have a popular ring to it. Unfortunately, that will not solve the problem we have.
 
Of course businesses alter their business decisions to minimize the negative impact of changing tax rates. My point was that to return to the tax rates on upper level personal income that existed during the Clinton administration would not have a significant negative effect on business.

Businesses are run mostly by upper level personal income people, aren't they? You speak as though businesses are their own individual entity... we have poor people, the middle class, rich people, and businesses. Clinton's largest tax increase in history, resulted in a loss of revenue the following year, go look it up. When the 94 R Congress got the tax cuts through, the revenues increased the following year. These are just facts. Bush's tax cuts were going to "Blow a hole in the deficit!" according to Al Gore! We are currently in one of the longest sustained economic growth periods of our time, aside from the Reagan years, we haven't had such a period recently, and quarter after quarter, revenues are consistently more than projected.
 
businesses ARE their own entity and have tax laws that apply to them that do NOT apply to individuals. Your knowledge of tax law is meager at best.

And we may be in a period of growth, but that has not stopped Bush from blowing a hole in the deficit!
 
"You speak as though businesses are their own individual entity... we have poor people, the middle class, rich people, and businesses."

Dixie displays his absolute ignorance as to the legal standing of corporations in American tax law

that is almost stupid enough to replace the quote in my signature line
 
maineman said:
"Walter E. Williams suggested we should have taxation tied to votes, the people who pay the most in taxes, have the most votes. His reasoning is, this is how every major corporation in America is operated, the shareholders and stockholders control the votes on corporate policy. The people who are investing the money, are the ones who determine how the money is spent. If it makes sense for corporate America, why not the Government?"

that would be an oligarchy, not a democracy and it would be the government by the wealthy for the wealthy...I would think that anyone who expressed such an unAmerican point of view would be considered nothing less than a traitor.
Click to expand...

I think he makes a valid point. It's how American corporations are operated. Everyone would still get one vote, just by showing up to vote. Everyone would be encouraged to pay taxes, because this is how you earn extra votes.

Let's go back to the corporation for an analogy here.... Say this company wanted you to invest your money in them, and they tell you that they don't really have a board of trustees or directors, they just let the customers decide what is best for the business and go from there. If they want free TV's, that's what we give them, they call all the shots... are you going to invest money in such a company? Of course not!

This is how Washington D.C. is operated, and Williams makes a brilliant observation regarding this. Undermining a crucial American war for political gain, is a helluva lot closer to being an unAmerican traitor, in my opinion.
 
dixie is wrong. tax won't turn a profitable compay in to the red, but it will indeed afect the profit they have. if the copr tax rate goes to 30
5 ( i think it's 15 now) then the 30m profit will end up being 21m instead of the current 25.5, so the corp now has 4.5m less for investment, health care increase next year, executive bonuses, etc.

ta policy does have an effect on the econony very similar to interest rate manipulation since both affect the cost of doing business. high taxes and high interest rates increase the cost of doing business and lower taxes and lower interet rate reult in lower cost of business. it all depends on how much you change either on how it wll effect the economy.

for instance, the 90s tech boom was so huge, even large tax increase couldn't kill it; the tax increases actually tempered the economy enough to keep inflation low and still allow a good growth at the same time; exactly the same thing interst hikes would have had tot do if the tax increases hadn't been there to do it in the first place.

and the tax cuts of 2001 helped to keep the econnomy from sinking into a serious recession/depression since huge rate cuts weren't enough to offset the crashing economy.

so tax cuts of increases timed correctly cna actually enhance moneterya policy of interest rate manipulation.
 
calling for an end to democracy and rule by the wealthy for the wealthy is treason..... I have never undermined a crucial American war for political gain...I have criticized the boneheaded foreign policy and military missteps of an inept administration in the conduct of that war. The war is against islamic extremists. Saddam did a better job of controlling them AND Iran than we have done.
 
maineman said:
businesses ARE their own entity and have tax laws that apply to them that do NOT apply to individuals. Your knowledge of tax law is meager at best.

And we may be in a period of growth, but that has not stopped Bush from blowing a hole in the deficit!
Click to expand...


No, I understand tax law and how it applies. I know of no business that is not owned by a person. Most of the people I know who own business and show a personal income, it comes from the business they own. Most wealthy people who show a gain in personal income, just speculating here, but I think it probably comes from business investments, tied to a business they own and pay taxes on.

I have a fairly good knowledge of tax law, but I don't have knowledge of these invisible entities you call 'businesses', which you think pay taxes to government... Most businesses I know of, have someone who is an individual, who has to file a tax return in the US, who owns and operates the business for personal gain, and thus has to pay whatever taxes result. I know of no businesses which operate completely on their own.
 
the corporation is a legal entity and tax laws apply to it differently than they do to its managers.

You're wrong Dixie. One could raise the individual marginal income tax rate for very wealthy individuals without touching the corporate tax rates whatsoever.
 
Dixie said:
Nope! They do not operate on their own. They have a CEO, CFO, Board of Directors, etc. Never does a corporation operate on its own.
Click to expand...

LOL! WTF????

I'll actually do some tax forecasts around here and I can tell you unequivocally you're wrong. The businesses taxes have NOTHING to with CEO's tax rates. And we file with the IRS as our legal entities.
 
LMAO, that's pretty funny though. I can't wait to see how he tap dances around this one.
 
maineman said:
the corporation is a legal entity and tax laws apply to it differently than they do to its managers.

You're wrong Dixie. One could raise the individual marginal income tax rate for very wealthy individuals without touching the corporate tax rates whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I understand the legal entity, that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about rich people's personal income. Now, it's my argument, that most of these rich people who make a personal income, are doing so at the expense of a corporation or business they own. How else would rich people make substantial personal income? So, rich people, are 'inherently' tied to business... pardon the pun. You tax their income, you effect their business.

It doesn't matter what the argument is, maybe they make income by investing their money and taking a risk? So? If you are removing any incentive for them to make a profit through investing, why would they want to? Maybe they spend their money buying a yacht? So? Some yacht salesman made a killer commission that month, some yacht builder had work through the winter, some yacht insurance salesman will sell a nice policy, some yacht club will sell another space at the marina, some yacht crewman will have a job for a while, some yacht fueling station will sell some gas... you get the picture?

Some people are so caught up in a class envy thing, they fail to see the economic principle of the matter. The people who have all the money, don't have to spend a dime of it, and if you make it impossible for them to do, they won't. Give them incentives, reward their success, encourage continued success, and you will generate far more prosperity than you can imagine, because then they are motivated to be successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top