Raising the tax rate doesn’t close loopholes. Closing loopholes is what the Republican had proposed, so I don’t see how that quote works in this context.
I’ve got a one-liner for you: Poison the well much?
And the professor is correct. Death of Rats claimed
which is not correct. The tax increases do reduce the deficit by a rather small amount, but do not prevent incurring more debt, do not create a surplus, and cannot be used to pay down the debt.
If you are talking about the deficit, it is not $14 trillion, it is currently about $1.1 trillion. If you are talking about the debt, it is also not $14 trillion; it is over $16 trillion. (Cite.)
Regards,
Shodan
I was going by the numbers used earlier by msmith. Perhaps she was wrong about the projected 1.5 trillion from the tax increase too, because from your numbers that would more than wipe out the deficit.
Republicans are always bemoaning “tax-and-spend Liberals”, but at least that is better than “borrow-and-spend-even-MORE, like a drunken sailor, Conservatives” we have today.
“Deficits don’t matter.” Darth Cheney
I understand that “The Rich” are more likely to have more resources than most of the regular folks. What would stop them from becoming mobile to avoid any significant increases in taxes?
What would be more fair than saying taxes citizens have to pay are x%?
The same rate in other words.
If x was 10% some one who made a $1000 pays $100
$10,000 $1000
$100,000 $10,000
$1,000,000 $100,000 etc.
It would look to me as though the people who made more money would pay more taxes. [SIZE=“1”] And then get the same government as the rest of us.
[/SIZE]
Our president gave me the impression that he was indeed working over the rich and being divisive.
I didn’t see much compromise with the Health Care Act, Tax, Deficit plan, Debt Ceiling, and I wouldn’t expect any on future issues.
Is there something wrong with Marxists and should we discriminate?
If we were to put the professor and the rest of the republicans in the grave I am afraid you will likely have to pay more in taxes to make up for the drastically reduced tax base.
What’s stopping them now?
Do you think the effect of paying 10% of your income is the same for someone making $10,000 as it is for someone making $1,000,000?
If you think “the rich” get the same government as the rest of us, you really aren’t paying attention.
“Divisive” in the sense of “not doing what the GOP want”, yes. Funny, that.
Of course not. Since the Congressional Republicans actively agreed to block everything Obama has attempted from the day of his first inauguration, even where he has offered concession after concession, even to the point of filibustering their own bills, naturally you won’t have seen much compromise.
Oh wait, were you talking about Obama? Never mind.
Since there are no Marxist elected officials in the US government, this is a moot point.
Debatable. It’s already well-established that red states get more government money than they pay in, and blue states pay in more than they get.
Shodan already explained, this is a distinction without a difference. Obama originally targeted $800 million in tax increases, then bumped his demand to $1.2 trillion, and ended up with $600 million. Each of those figures over ten years, which is important to remember. (If I’m remembering all these stats correctly…)
$60M in the current year changes the budget deficit from like $1.2 trillion to $1.1+ trillion. or something like that. It doesn’t do anything material to the debt, which is $16 trillion. With regard to the “tax the rich” fetish the president was indulging, the prof was right. The tax increases don’t really do shit.
Regarding the OP, remembe the prof’s editorializing when it comes time to write his evaluation at the end of the semester. A lot of school’s take those very seriously and it can have a meaningful impact on how he teaches in the future.
You don’t know either?
Is your point along the lines of:
Someone earns $10,000 and pays $0 ( not a taxpayer, a beneficiary )
$100,000 pays $90,000
$1,000,000 pays $990,000?
You are correct. Yes, money does talk.
Not funny. Divisive as in the citizenry.
The OP referenced Harvard.
They would all be blue.
That would actually work fine, if we pro-rated all prices as well. For example, if a car cost 20% of your earnings. The $10,000-per-year guy would pay $2,000 for his car, and the $1,000,000-earner would pay $200,000. Are you good with that?
That’s debatable. Some people feel the government is more responsive to the wealthy.
Well, THAT just indicates you weren’t paying attention. The Affordable Health Care Act is a classic example of compromises. In particular, the main thing the left wanted – making it “single-payer” – was definitely left out of the act to get it to pass. A necessary compromise, Democrats told their base.
I could quit my job and pay nothing for everything!
I wasn’t paying attention.
No Republicans in the house voted for it. The president had to compromise with his own party. No compromises with the GOP.
Here’s a one liner for the OP:
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason.
If you think “the rich” will get the same government as the rest of us when “the rich” are only high government officials and their cronies, you really aren’t paying attention.
Not nearly as funny as “bipartisanship” in the sense of “voting for exactly what the Democrats and Obama want”.
I don’t understand this conversation at all. Tax rates are set at the level that wins the most elections, not economic theory.
Please tell us how you made your first billion dollars? Is that repeatable? If it isn’t repeatable, it isn’t science, is it?
Paul Krugman is a liberal economist, isn’t he? If he’s wrong, why is he richer than you are? He is richer than you are, isn’t he? Can you show us your economics Nobel Prize medal?
I’d like to see the car you drive.
Are you just teaching us the immutable laws of economics, or are you teaching us your own preconceived notions of how an economy should be run and throwing out all the data that undermines those notions and dressing that up as rigorous scientific method? How can we tell the difference?
Somalia has few regulations, less enforcement, lower to no taxes and no budget deficit. Yet it is economically impoverished more than any nation on earth. Haven’t all Somalians “gone Galt” and why should we follow?
Correlation isn’t causation, but when the most regulated and highest taxed countries in the world all have a higher standard of living, median income and life expectancy than the US, doesn’t that at least make you consider that you are both the most educated, degreed and full of shit person in this lecture hall?
Haven’t you grossly oversimplified everything to make it understandable to us? Then why don’t we understand it and you do?
Whatever you do, do not ask any of these questions. It’s Economicstown Jake.
Karl Popper defined a scientific theory as something that could be tested, make predictions and be falsifiable. You aren’t teaching us anything that is falsifiable are you? Like trickle down economics that David Stockman, one of its architects, described as a Trojan horse?
Also, Obama’s plan was based on a GOP plan put forward during the Clinton presidency. It wasn’t divisive until a black man proposed it.
A one-liner:
“Every economic theory carries within it the seeds of its own destruction.”
This allows you to suggest his claim has flaws without the obligation to counter it with a flawless one.
(And besides being a handy rhetorical device, it’s true.)
Yeeaah, that’s not happening in America. Ever. The rich managed just fine under Eisenhower-era rates and they’re hardly going to join the bread lines with a return to Clinton-era tax rates.
Because the Democrats never compromise. Yeeaaaah, no. 200+ GOP-proposed amendments added to a healthcare plan that was already a GOP proposal, and still it was “rammed down our throats” unilaterally. The Democrats have compromised repeatedly and received nothing but abuse from the other side. Let’s have no false equivalences here.
What’s the course? If it’s an econ or poli sci course, then brief (perhaps even pointed, but brief) observations about expected revenues and their comparison to expected expenditures could be a case of using a contemporary issue as a jumping off point to more timeless economic analysis. The key would be brevity and limiting its use as a (provocative) jumping off point.
Remarks about the conduct of the campaign, the politics of the faculty of Harvard University, or Congressional negotiations seem to serve no scholarly purpose.
In like manner, a remark pointing out, say, who really makes up the 47% of federal entitlement recipients and how that might not conform to what people conventionally believe about who makes up that number, could be appropriate in an econ or public policy class, provided that it is kept brief and used to show “This is a hot topic, you should pay attention to this” and then followed by nonpartisan scholarship.
What kind of instructor is this? Frankly, it sounds like an adjunct non-academic who erroneously believes he’s been given a soapbox. If this is the case, I would set forth these observations and suggest that his contract not be renewed (not because he has partisan leanings, but because he doesn’t have the ability to prevent them from overwhelming his curricular teaching).
If the “47%” get mentioned, you can bring up the fact that the 47% were largely created by Republican-era* tax acts:
The 1986 tax act (Reagan) caused the % of people who didn’t pay Federal Income tax to jump from 15% to 27%.
Under Bush 1, the number rose from 27% to 32%.
Under Clinton, the number rose from 32% to 34.9%.
Under Bush 2, the number rose from 34.9% to 49%.
Under Obama, the number dropped from 49% to 47%.
*As defined by “A Republican was in the White House.”