Obama and taxes

[L1A1 Rocker]

You can.

And that is the logic that got us Jimmy Carter's mess. Please look at what JFK did with taxes and it's affect on tax income. Then look at the Regan tax plan that was modeled on JFK's and see how much money was taken in.

The U.S. already has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Why do you think companies are already leaving our shores. You really want to see industry growth and jobs in the U.S? Cut the corporate rate to a more competitive 15% and watch things take off.

I'm not talking about stimulating the economy. That surely needs to be done in the long term. I am also fully in favor of getting rid (not cutting) of corporate taxes, but right my now I think the primary concern should be on getting rid of the debt.

We agree on the end result. The problem is that it is all inter-related. If you want to increase $'s to the Fed you have to promote an atmosphere in the economy that lets as many people make as much money as possible. It is possible to raise the whole tide and as the saying goes - a rising tide lifts all boats and that should be the goal.

So the question is how to maximize income to the Fed's coffers? Well, first we need to be at or near full employment, figure 2-3% unemployment rate. We are fast approaching 10% and the trend is that it will go higher. That means we are looking at a less revinue to the Fed. How do we reverse that? Cut the capital gains tax and corporate tax. IIRC China's is around 12% or so. We are currently at 34%, slash that to 15% and cut the capital gains and we will see industry spurred on in about 3 months.

Now we need to look at individual taxes. When these are cut across the board we see a net increase in moneys to the Fed. The poorer folks suddenly have more descressionary funds to hit the movies, buy more toys for the kids and so forth. The rich that already have suffecent descressionary funds find they need to invest more money. With the 3X multiplicitive factor of invested money we see a compound money supply that is used to loans.

It is all an interdependently weaved web that at it's base is taxes. Lower the taxes and we see good things happen.

 

[Michael Chris]

How about not spending 10 trillion in the first place! (Both administrations are to blame)

Well, I suppose we could invent a time machine and try that.

 

[miraclefan]

How about not spending 10 trillion in the first place! (Both administrations are to blame)

Well, I suppose we could invent a time machine and try that.

While were on the subject this looks nice http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nation/story/71078.html I have a feeling in the end this will be on TOP of a gas tax, not do away with it.

 

[L1A1 Rocker]

How about not spending 10 trillion in the first place! (Both administrations are to blame)

Well, I suppose we could invent a time machine and try that.

While were on the subject this looks nice http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nation/story/71078.html I have a feeling in the end this will be on TOP of a gas tax, not do away with it.

I respond with the smoking Yamamoto, no, no, no. I mean this:

GPS Jammer -on sale for $269 only

in stock now, ready for immediate shipment.

 

[Michael Chris]

L1A1 Rocker, I'm not advocating a big tax increase. My main idea for generating revenue is for the federal government to legalize, produce, and sell what are now illegal drugs. That would hopefully be at least $100B (according to the only numbers I've seen from 1988) every year, I can't imagine that it would be too expensive to produce.. Plus we'd save on much of the cost on anti drug trafficking. That would be a pretty a good boost.

 

[miraclefan]

Well, I suppose we could invent a time machine and try that.

While were on the subject this looks nice http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nation/story/71078.html I have a feeling in the end this will be on TOP of a gas tax, not do away with it.

I respond with the smoking Yamamoto, no, no, no. I mean this:

GPS Jammer -on sale for $269 only

in stock now, ready for immediate shipment.

*Pssst, hey buddy* Where can I get this?

 

[miraclefan]

L1A1 Rocker, I'm not advocating a big tax increase. My main idea for generating revenue is for the federal government to legalize, produce, and sell what are now illegal drugs. That would hopefully be at least $100B (according to the only numbers I've seen from 1988) every year, I can't imagine that it would be too expensive to produce.. Plus we'd save on much of the cost on anti drug trafficking. That would be a pretty a good boost.

I'M actually for this idea!

 

[Michael Chris]

Not to mention the lives saved by eliminating a good chunk of the world's drug trade.

 

[kimc]

Anyone think we should get rid of the income tax system and go back to the import tariffs that funded the Federal government until relatively recently? Noto only would families and corporations have more money to spend but that would be one way to get rid of the trade deficit.

I'm in sink with you. Administrating the income tax system costs too much money. Unfortunatly, going back to just tariffs would not generate sufficient income to continue current spending levels. I'd be very willing to go to the fair tax system and eliminate the entire income tax system. Problem is, that would put a lot of accountants and tax lawyers out of business - and those folks have very powerful contacts in our legislature.

This is true. There was a whole custom house / tariff infrastructure in place when the import system was abolished in favor of income taxes but back then that infrastructure didn't have the powerful lobby force that the current infrastructure has.

It's too bad.

 

[miraclefan]

Anyone think we should get rid of the income tax system and go back to the import tariffs that funded the Federal government until relatively recently? Noto only would families and corporations have more money to spend but that would be one way to get rid of the trade deficit.

I'm in sink with you. Administrating the income tax system costs too much money. Unfortunatly, going back to just tariffs would not generate sufficient income to continue current spending levels. I'd be very willing to go to the fair tax system and eliminate the entire income tax system. Problem is, that would put a lot of accountants and tax lawyers out of business - and those folks have very powerful contacts in our legislature.

This is true. There was a whole custom house / tariff infrastructure in place when the import system was abolished in favor of income taxes but back then that infrastructure didn't have the powerful lobby force that the current infrastructure has.

It's too bad.

Indeed!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I want the Obama administration and Congress to do whatever is in the best interests of the economy and the people. If that includes tax increases for those making under $250K, and if they can justify it with evidence to support their case after weighing the alternatives, then I would support it regardless of any earlier campaign promises made to the contrary.

Situations change, and demanding slavish adherence to campaign promises made months or years before under different circumstances even if it's no longer in the best interests of the country is ridiculous. It wasn't fair when it was done to the first President Bush, and it would be wrong to call Obama hypocritical if he had to go back on his campaign promise for justifiable reasons (if they are).

It's why I hate charges against a candidate or politician of being a "flip-flopper" as well of he or she has a good reason to change their mind. I don't want some guy who is more concerned with his public image than with admitting maybe they were wrong or changing their position in light of new information. Rigidity and resistance to change in light of new evidence is not a virtue, and neither is being more concerned with being consistent with past statements over doing what is right in the here and now.

 

[Similitude]

Obama and his team will do what it takes. However, that being said, I don't think they plan on doing any overhaul to the main tax code until the Bush code comes up in a few years.

 

[Chimpy Chompy]

What Locutus said. $250k is rather a lot of money anyway.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

L1A1 Rocker, I'm not advocating a big tax increase. My main idea for generating revenue is for the federal government to legalize, produce, and sell what are now illegal drugs. That would hopefully be at least $100B (according to the only numbers I've seen from 1988) every year, I can't imagine that it would be too expensive to produce.. Plus we'd save on much of the cost on anti drug trafficking. That would be a pretty a good boost.

So our government should be producing drugs that harm people? Perhaps they should groom prostitutes as well, because there's some serious business being done by them just in Washington alone.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I want the Obama administration and Congress to do whatever is in the best interests of the economy and the people. If that includes tax increases for those making under $250K, and if they can justify it with evidence to support their case after weighing the alternatives, then I would support it regardless of any earlier campaign promises made to the contrary.

Situations change, and demanding slavish adherence to campaign promises made months or years before under different circumstances even if it's no longer in the best interests of the country is ridiculous. It wasn't fair when it was done to the first President Bush, and it would be wrong to call Obama hypocritical if he had to go back on his campaign promise for justifiable reasons (if they are).

It's why I hate charges against a candidate or politician of being a "flip-flopper" as well of he or she has a good reason to change their mind. I don't want some guy who is more concerned with his public image than with admitting maybe they were wrong or changing their position in light of new information. Rigidity and resistance to change in light of new evidence is not a virtue, and neither is being more concerned with being consistent with past statements over doing what is right in the here and now.

But this ISN'T "in light of new information". Obama KNEW what programs he wanted to put into place and what industries he wanted the government to control. He also KNEW the only way to do this was to increase taxes on EVERYONE.

See, I don't care if everyone is taxed because I'm going to be taxed by him anyway. I'm actually glad that the majority of people that voted for him are going to have to pay the price for it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So our government should be producing drugs that harm people? Perhaps they should groom prostitutes as well, because there's some serious business being done by them just in Washington alone.

Well, I don't think the government should be producing drugs, and definitely not the harder stuff, but legalizing the production and distribution of marijuana by private industry with heavy regulation and taxes? Sure.

And no, they shouldn't be grooming prostitutes, but again, legalizing it for private businesses with heavy regulation (mandatory medical testing, assuring that they're not being mistreated, etc.) and taxation is something I'm fine with. It hasn't destroyed Nevada.

 

[Roshi]

Funny how your threads cannot be politically biased, TLS...

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Funny how your threads cannot be politically biased, TLS...

Umm, did I not also in this very same thread take the Bush administration to task for out of control spending? If you want to dispute my contentions about Obama please do so, but at least be fair in admitting what I have said.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

But this ISN'T "in light of new information". Obama KNEW what programs he wanted to put into place and what industries he wanted the government to control. He also KNEW the only way to do this was to increase taxes on EVERYONE.

See, I don't care if everyone is taxed because I'm going to be taxed by him anyway. I'm actually glad that the majority of people that voted for him are going to have to pay the price for it.

And the majority of people who voted for him probably don't see it as a punishment and would be more than willing to pay a little more in taxes as long as it's spent on worthy programs that benefit the people and the country.

But is there some specific program or comment you have in mind here? Because I was under the impression that we were discussing hypothetical future scenarios and now you're referring to it in the past tense as if it's already been decided. If there is, it would be nice if you just got to the point so we can stop dealing in vague hypotheticals.

I assume you're referring to the possibility of taxing existing employer provided or private health insurance (so far it seems only the upper echelon plans) in order to finance universal health care, which was proposed in Congress and not by Obama himself. He hasn't definitively come out for or against it yet, merely saying he would take the matter under consideration even though it's not something he wanted to do. It seems likely that it will be necessary though to finance the program.

It turns out the President is not all-powerful and actually has to compromise with others in order to achieve his (and their) goals. Imagine that.

 

[Michael Chris]

L1A1 Rocker, I'm not advocating a big tax increase. My main idea for generating revenue is for the federal government to legalize, produce, and sell what are now illegal drugs. That would hopefully be at least $100B (according to the only numbers I've seen from 1988) every year, I can't imagine that it would be too expensive to produce.. Plus we'd save on much of the cost on anti drug trafficking. That would be a pretty a good boost.

So our government should be producing drugs that harm people? Perhaps they should groom prostitutes as well, because there's some serious business being done by them just in Washington alone.

Well it depends on what you mean by groom. I certainly think it should be well regulated.