U.S. Fiscal Future Won’t Be Like Its Carefree Past

cawacko said:
you eliminate FICA caps and raise corporate taxes as he's proposing and at least to me that's jacking up taxes.
Click to expand...

Why would require citizens to pay an AMT and not have the same thing corporations. Especially when the benefit just as much from the stability of our society.
 
cawacko said:
People still get more out of S.S. than they pay into it. You eliminate income tax then it becomes more a welfare program and much easier to cut. It's why certain progressive groups don't want them removed.

More and more of our debt is going to interest payments. That's only going to continue and interest rates aren't going to stay low forever.
Click to expand...

Understood. However the payouts from SS being more than the income would be corrected by eliminating the FICA caps on payroll taxes. Then once the baby boomers die off in another 30 years and gen x starts collecting the math works again as there will be more workers than collectors.
 
smb said:
You are speaking as if raising taxes is known to cause economic stagnation. That simply is not true.

In 1916 we raised taxes and the economy grew without recession.

In 1944 we raised taxes and the economy took off in 50's.

In 1989 we raised taxes and again in 1993 and the economy took off and we ended up with budget surplus.

So the link between raising taxes and tanking the economy is proven to be false.
Click to expand...

In the 1940's we were in WWII and the gov't took over our economy. Our economy was strong in the '50's because much of Europe and japan had been destroyed. We raised taxes in 1990 and went into recession. We cut taxes in 1997 and went into budget surpluses. We raised taxes in 2010 I believe and had a very slow recovery.

We have a demographic challenge in this country as Boomers age and our economy is losing some of its dynamism. That has to be addressed.
 
smb said:
Why would require citizens to pay an AMT and not have the same thing corporations. Especially when the benefit just as much from the stability of our society.
Click to expand...

there used to be one I thought. did they get rid of it?
 
cawacko said:
In the 1940's we were in WWII and the gov't took over our economy. Our economy was strong in the '50's because much of Europe and japan had been destroyed. We raised taxes in 1990 and went into recession. We cut taxes in 1997 and went into budget surpluses. We raised taxes in 2010 I believe and had a very slow recovery.

We have a demographic challenge in this country as Boomers age and our economy is losing some of its dynamism. That has to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Your facts are off. The recession in the '90's was from 90-91. Clinton came into office and passed the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which raised taxes significantly. There wasn't another recession until 2001 because of the dot com bubble.

Also the budget deficit was dropping each year after the tax increase in 1993 before the tax cut in 1997. Also the tax cut in 1997 was not a payroll nor income tax cut but just a corporate and not personal capital gains tax cut.

Again the notion that tax increases some how damage the economy is belied by facts.
 
cawacko said:
there used to be one I thought. did they get rid of it?
Click to expand...

Corporations do not pay an AMT. If they get enough deductions, and they always do, they pay no taxes on their profits. Individuals no matter what their deductions they take if they make over 120,00K will pay AMT even if they can deduct their way out of taxes.
 
smb said:
Corporations do not pay an AMT. If they get enough deductions, and they always do, they pay no taxes on their profits. Individuals no matter what their deductions they take if they make over 120,00K will pay AMT even if they can deduct their way out of taxes.
Click to expand...

Are these wrong? (not a rhetorical question)


http://smallbusiness.chron.com/calculate-corporate-alternative-minimum-tax-20032.html

http://dowellcpa.com/understanding-the-corporate-amt-alternative-minimum-tax/
 
cawacko said:
The big picture, and what the article hits on, is we have less workers supporting retirees. That puts even more pressure on our entitlement programs.
Click to expand...
sure..and looking to fill the gaps with immigrants is fine by me IF they are skilled (merit based)
 
Nordberg said:
Just talking to uninformed. http://www.macrotrends.net/2023/national-debt-by-president Obama was saddled with the original costs of saving the economy after bush allowed the 2008 crash. If the Repubs allowed Clinton policies to continue, we would have paid the debt off. WOW you are dumb. here is another. http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/htt...friendly+links&utm_campaign=twitter+fl+plugin
Click to expand...

So if we had stayed on Clinton's plan the dot com bubble wouldn't have burst and we would have paid off almost $6 trillion of national debt? And you're calling me uninformed and dumb?
 
cawacko said:
there are plenty of jobs where we need cheap low skilled labor as well. It's how our economy works.
Click to expand...
but we have plenty of cheap skill labor available..we don't need to import them.

I got guys constantly knocking on my door asking if I need tree trimming, or landscaping, or gardening
 
hvilleherb said:
Simple solution. We let foreigners come over on a 2 year work visa. After 2 years they are sent back home and are replaced by another set of foreigners who are also limited to 2 years in America. The days of offering citizenship to foreigners coming over here must end.
Click to expand...

The problem is, many of them over stay their visas and we don't kick them out when they do. We need to actually enforce the immigration laws we have, but the left loses their mind when we try to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top