5 Reasons Why the “Supercommittee” Must Consider Tax Increases

[mawilson 2,133]

Of course they don't. How could they seeing that they've been skinned already? Median income declined since 2000 which means that that bottom 50% already has less than they ever did. Where did all that income growth of the last decade go? You guessed it, to the top 5%. They took the skin of the peasants already and are now complaining that the peasants don't have any skin in the game? Give them back their skin and they might just put some back into the game.

I don't care. Even if they make $100 a year, they have to pay something. In Denmark, even the poorest of the poor still pay 8 percent.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

you're right. Income did increase with the tax cuts in place. Glad we can agree. The Feds made more money in 2007 than at any other point in history. All with the cuts in place.

At the height of economic expansion cycle that ended in 2000/2001, federal tax revenue relative to GDP was above the historic average. At the height of the next economic expansion cycle that ended in 2007/2008, federal tax reveues relative to GDP were barely scratching the average. Hard to argue that tax reveneues were at an all time high.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I guess you missed whose income increased that would be subject to the point of the expiration of these tax cuts.

You automatically assume that gross incomes will be claimed upon expiration of said taxcuts.

You also automatically assume that those gross incomes will either stay the same or increase with the expiration.

It's not as simple as "oh they'll expire, so now people pay more in taxes." Sure the rates go up on paper, but there are other contributing factors that decide if revenues will actually increase, stay the same, or even go down.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

At the height of economic expansion cycle that ended in 2000/2001, federal tax revenue relative to GDP was above the historic average. At the height of the next economic expansion cycle that ended in 2007/2008, federal tax reveues relative to GDP were barely scratching the average. Hard to argue that tax reveneues were at an all time high.

Let's see: Manufacturing/Production leaving the economy... Consumer driven economy being in. Yeah, that's going to happen. You're going to create a GAP in the percetages and ratios to GDP on all fronts. Not to mention a sinking dollar value plays a role here as well.

It's not hard to argue the fact though that actual physical dollars, we made more than ever. Jobs were up, consumers were buying #######, home sales through the roof, etc.

The problem though with our government is they chose to blow the excess money away on foreign soil, fighting some BS war, and then doing nothing to reform other expenditures as well.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Let's see: Manufacturing/Production leaving the economy... Consumer driven economy being in. Yeah, that's going to happen. You're going to create a GAP in the percetages and ratios to GDP on all fronts. Not to mention a sinking dollar value plays a role here as well.

It's not hard to argue the fact though that actual physical dollars, we made more than ever. Jobs were up, consumers were buying #######, home sales through the roof, etc.

The problem though with our government is they chose to blow the excess money away on foreign soil, fighting some BS war, and then doing nothing to reform other expenditures as well.

You just can't get to the point that tax revenues would have been higher had the rates not been lowered. I think the prediction of what the tax cuts would do to revenues that was presented here in several threats turned out pretty damn accurate. And they did so because there's no mystery around this issue no matter how many times you claim that there is.

I agree on the irresponsible unfunded spending on wars, new entitlements and new federal bureaucracies - all instituted by the fiscally responsible GOP earlier this century. And we'll be paying for that for the rest of the century and then some.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You just can't get to the point that tax revenues would have been higher had the rates not been lowered. I think the prediction of what the tax cuts would do to revenues that was presented here in several threats turned out pretty damn accurate. And they did so because there's no mystery around this issue no matter how many times you claim that there is.

again, you're making a grand assumption that if rates were higher that the economy would be the same now. The fact is, we don't know that. Just as we don't know 12 months from now if were are going to have another boom, or we are going to drop even lower...

Nothing is as simple as raising and lowering a rate. Nothing is ever for sure when you are dealing with percentages and an ever changing variable.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't care. Even if they make $100 a year, they have to pay something. In Denmark, even the poorest of the poor still pay 8 percent.

I would support that.

[Zero Sum 305]

You automatically assume that gross incomes will be claimed upon expiration of said taxcuts.

You also automatically assume that those gross incomes will either stay the same or increase with the expiration.

It's not as simple as "oh they'll expire, so now people pay more in taxes." Sure the rates go up on paper, but there are other contributing factors that decide if revenues will actually increase, stay the same, or even go down.

You assume and assume without actually addressing the point I was making.

The income rates most benefitted from these cuts are hardly going away. As I stated, they have increased in part due to the increased wealth hoarding. By definition, a tax cut should have resulted in increased economic growth via more job creation. It did not. End of story.

Let's see: Manufacturing/Production leaving the economy... Consumer driven economy being in. Yeah, that's going to happen. You're going to create a GAP in the percetages and ratios to GDP on all fronts. Not to mention a sinking dollar value plays a role here as well.

It's not hard to argue the fact though that actual physical dollars, we made more than ever. Jobs were up, consumers were buying #######, home sales through the roof, etc.

The problem though with our government is they chose to blow the excess money away on foreign soil, fighting some BS war, and then doing nothing to reform other expenditures as well.

There's that spending problem.

For those things you'd need an increased gas tax and a war tax to fund such demands.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You assume and assume without actually addressing the point I was making.

The income rates most benefitted from these cuts are hardly going away. As I stated, they have increased in part due to the increased wealth hoarding. By definition, a tax cut should have resulted in increased economic growth via more job creation. It did not. End of story.

Sure it did.

The economy didn't crash though thanks to tax rates though.

The economy crashed for the reason that I have said time and time again, that was IGNORED by the Clinton administration. Well, I shouldn't say 'ignored,' they knew exactly what was going to happen. Not Clinton himself,I don't blame him. He was naive to what the bankers around him were doing.

Either way, the fact remains that revenues increased after the tax cuts were passed.

I never said those incomes were necessarily going to 'go away,' however they could greatly shrink and instead of bonuses being granted in 'cash' they could just as easily be granted in stock options, etc. If you truly think that a higher tax rate will automatically generate more revenue, then you are naive to how the system works. Just as I've said it's naive to assume that when you cut taxes something is going to happen as well. Raising and cutting taxes on their own never guarantees anything.

[Zero Sum 305]

Yawn

[Ban Hammer 13,554]

I would support that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't care. Even if they make $100 a year, they have to pay something. In Denmark, even the poorest of the poor still pay 8 percent.

As they do here - 7.65% Medicare and Social Security tax on every dollar earned up to $106,000.00 - after that, this rate drops to nil.

[Ban Hammer 13,554]

Yawn

[Zero Sum 305]

As they do here - 7.65% Medicare and Social Security tax on every dollar earned up to $106,000.00 - after that, this rate drops to nil.

Truth here won't get you far.

TY

[mawilson 2,133]

As they do here - 7.65% Medicare and Social Security tax on every dollar earned up to $106,000.00 - after that, this rate drops to nil.

They are levied on AGI, not gross wages.