I’m not angry.
I am elegantly skeptical.
Cite? With specific cuts?
Do you have a cite for your claim? While I’m aware that corporations try, and do, minimize the taxes they pay, I think you overstate the case.
Be that as it may, what percent do you think corporations should pay? Let’s say you’re happy with a real 35%, how would you handle the fact that other countries have a rate under half that. Did you watch 60 Minutes last night? Look at Switzerland, Ireland, Canada. How would you handle that?
And what happens if you don’t volunteer?
I don’t have a chart, but this column notes
he goes on to say
Now, if you are talking absolute dollars and not percent of GDP you should be ashamed of yourself, since that dirty little trick is meant for tea baggers and other such nitwits, and is insulting if tried on Dopers.
There’s also the weasel words of “government revenue”, “steadily”, and “80s”, since the massive SS tax hikes of the 80s temporarily caused an increase in government percentage of revenue at the same time as the income tax revenues as a % of GDP fell. But when people oppose raising taxes they somehow forget to remember that taxes increased in the 80s for many taxpayers rather than decreased.
Voyager
What is also interesting from your article is the chart that shows Tax/GDP for members of the OECD. The US is at the bottom of the list (1.8%) while Norway is at the top of the list (12.5%).
Also note that despite this Norway has one of the highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world.
Norway - $53,269, ranked 3rd
United States - $47,132, ranked 9th
(Numbers from Wiki search on US and Norway)
No, but its a big part of it, a part that some people seem to entirely dismiss.
No they have deficit problems and there is only one party in America that thinks that deficit problems can only be addressed from one side of the ledger.
Really? Is that what happened under Clinton? Is that what happened under all the Presidents before Reagan?
Yeah right, and the higher revenues had nothing to do with it.
And cutting spending isn’t?
There is evidence that tax increases that go into cutting deficits does not hinder economic growth
Explain how that works? How do the rich shelter income with capital losses?
Taxes went down every time they cut taxes. Its not like cutting taxes freezes economic growth in its tracks or anything. The GDP keep rising and the tax revenue rises along with it.
We are talking about taxes because of the deficit. If we had a surplus, we wouldn’t be talking about increasing taxes.
cite. IIRC they passed the tax cuts on reconciliation so they avoided filibuster (isn’t this the reason they had to put in a ten year sunset provision in the tax cuts?).
People can argue about whether the Democrats were actually voting for an invasion of Iraq or just giving Bush leverage. The Democrats will say that the understanding was that Bush would only use the resolution as leverage, the Republicans will say otherwise.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt
And yet the Republican answer to most of this countries problems will fit onto a postage stamp.
He ALSO points out that we face entitlements that all the money on the Forbes 500 couldn’t pay for. We need entitlement reform (well we need medicare/medicaid reform) as well as higher taxes.
What? No response from Shagnasty ? I guess the deficit-ending cuts all come from the obvious candidates: Waste and Funding for NPR.
Some cynics claim that “fiscal conservatives” are people whose political thought is “Tax cuts is good, its a no-braner,” but who want to pretend to be erudite. I see little evidence to the contrary even here at SDMB.
Don’t put words in my my mouth. I am not one to call for things like NPR cuts because that won’t save any significant amount of money. We need deep, deep cuts not token gestures. One target is the U.S. military and the current wars. We need to start pulling of of both and and just let the regions collapse into Civil War or whatever is going to happen. Social Security and Medicare are next and they are harder. We have to start phasing out benefits in the long-term for people base on age. You can’t really take from the people who are already retired based on the expected payouts so the cuts will have to start with those 50 and younger and be deeper the younger you are. You pay the same amount into the system. You expected payment goes way down if you are young. Isn’t this fun? A new system will be put into place for younger people that is self-sustaining indefinitely but much more conservative in its payments versus contributions. ’
I would also target a 10 - 15% budget cut across all departments and programs that aren’t impacted by any of the ones that are more severe. This is to save money but also make sure that everyone takes some punishment and to force some creative efficiency out of the systems. Most budgets have 10 - 15% of fat or inefficiencies in them that can be worked around with minimal impact by resourceful bureaucrats. If they can’t, oh well.
I argued against the Trillion Dollar Mistake in Iraq 9 years ago before it was known by that name, so you won’t get an argument with me there. Soc Sec and Medicare are separately financed so, whether misfinanced or not, seem irrelevant here. Let’s focus on “10 - 15% budget cut across all departments and programs.” Another recent thread discusses EPA. Is this one you’d cut more than 10-15% or less? Do you honestly think it would do as good a job as now with 10-15% less funding? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but your “If they can’t, oh well” makes me wonder if your response to poorer performance would be “Serves them right!”
Webpages recently linked to many times on this board show that the present deficit is due to lower taxes rather than increased spending, yet your reason for opposing tax increases seems to be the “10 - 15% of fat or inefficiencies”.
If, after cutting spending by 10-15%, programs were 10-15% less effective than they are now, would you then argue that they were still wasting 10-15% and ask for a further 10-15% cut?
Maybe but the overall problem isn’t about effectiveness or waste. It is about raw dollars saved and not a value judgment. The assumption is that most programs could be made 10 - 15% more efficient through efficiency and savings gains that they can come up with for themselves if they have to. If they can’t and become less effective, that still isn’t a primary concern except for a few select programs that are true issues of public safety and massive risk in the worst case if there is a failure such as nuclear compliance programs.The first order of business is to get expenditures back in direct line with revenue mainly as a math problem and not some sweeping political statement. After that is achieved, the available pool of money to fight over will be smaller but there will still be room for arguments over the remaining more healthy sized pool that won’t bankrupt the nation no matter how it is spent as long as it doesn’t grow.
There is an old proverb that sums up the situation. A man that makes $100 a week and spends $99 lives a happy and prosperous life. A man that makes $100 a week and spends $101 dies penniless and miserable.
It is a small difference but it is all the difference in the world between long-term success and failure. We as a nation have to become the $99 man no matter what it takes.
Norway is also a gigantic oil exporter. That accounts for a good 20% or so of GDP. Nevertheless, it is an incredibly interesting place economically. This is a particularly neat read.
What you say would make some sense except for one simple fact you continually ignore.
The U.S.A. did rather well for many decades with a given level of taxes and a similar level of spending. Spending is about the same as before. It’s the taxes that have gone down.
Spending is about the same as before? Current U.S. spending is about 5 or 6 percent of GDP higher than its historical average. Current taxes, on the other hand, are about 2 to 3 percent of GDP lower than their historical average.
Furthermore, the revenue loss is mostly due to the recession - in 2007, revenue was 3-4% of GDP higher than it is now. Spending, on the other hand, is only partly due to the recession. So when/if the economy recovers, you can expect revenues to return to somewhere close to their historical average, but spending will still be much higher than the average.
More importantly, the trend on the horizon that’s going to cause the government’s budget to explode is not that there’s a trend towards lower revenues, but a trend towards higher expenditures. This is due to the rising cost of debt service and entitlement plans that are unfunded and which will break the bank.
So it’s not revenue that’s the real problem, it’s spending. In fact, you can’t possibly raise enough revenue to cover the spending unless you go to a VAT and start raising taxes on the middle class. The wealthy don’t have the money you need. So unless you’re willing to go there, you MUST cut spending. Furthermore, no matter what you do to all other government and spending, the budget will still implode unless you get entitlement costs under control.
Hey, gonzomax, could you please answer the questions from posts 103 and 104? Thanks.
There’s one 'fiscal conservative" on this board who actually has more than a high-school understanding of economics. Unfortunately his posts are chock-full of exagerations, misconceptions, distortions, and selective data.
DISTORTION:
FACT: From O.M.B. historic data, On-budget receipts and outlays as percentage of GDP for representative years:
1965 14.6 14.8
1983 13.2 19.2
1998 15.1 15.4
2004 11.5 16.4
2009 10.3 21.3
1965 and 1998 are examples of similar, nearly balanced budgets. High spending in 2009 was due in large measure to TARP. To examine these numbers and conclude that low taxes are not a major blame is to exhibit confusion.
DISTORTION:
Uh, yeah. Underfunding leads to deficits which lead to debt service costs. But to then conclude that underfunding is somehow good shows, again, confusion.
Here we go again. :smack: If taxing the rich isn’t the silver bullet that solves all problems instantaneously, then don’t tax the rich at all. :smack: This is your cue to do as you did last time we met in a thread, and now throw out an incorrect exaggerated statistic, then accuse me of “nitpicking” about “chump change” if I bother to correct you. 