PDA

View Full Version : It's simple, taxes must either increase substantially or we must spend a lot less...



Okla-homey
4/6/2011, 05:44 AM
Nutshell version of why the current level of federal expenditures across the board are not sustainable. The federal governmnet simply cannot afford to do all the things it does and wants to do. Period.

In March, the U.S. government grossed $194 billion in tax revenue and paid out $65.9 billion in tax refunds, netting $128.179 billion.

Over the same time, the government spent $1.1 trillion (net of the tax refunds). In other words, the government spent 8.2 times what it made in March. And where did most of that money go? To buy Treasury bills. The U.S. government spent $705.3 billion redeeming matured paper.

In a Senate Budget Committee testimony, Erskine Bowles – former chief of staff to President Clinton and current co-chair of Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility said of the current situation, "I'm really concerned. I think we face the most predictable economic crisis in history. A lot of us sitting in this room didn't see this last crisis as it came upon us. But this one is really easy to see. The fiscal path we are on today is simply not sustainable."

Whet
4/6/2011, 06:29 AM
They implement all these high cost give-aways, expensive programs, destroy domestic energy production and dilly in their hope & change foreign policy. But, are surprised about sustaining the spending? They got their programs, now their solution is to increase taxes - socialism at its best.

Illinois, facing huge deficits, decided to raise taxes by 67%, but has done nothing to address its runaway spending. Well, they did give the teachers a pay increase for helping the governor get elected (those darn teachers unions)

SoonerProphet
4/6/2011, 08:11 AM
They implement all these high cost give-aways, expensive programs, destroy domestic energy production and dilly in their hope & change foreign policy. But, are surprised about sustaining the spending? They got their programs, now their solution is to increase taxes - socialism at its best.

Illinois, facing huge deficits, decided to raise taxes by 67%, but has done nothing to address its runaway spending. Well, they did give the teachers a pay increase for helping the governor get elected (those darn teachers unions)

I am sure "they" is a reference to both political parties.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 08:18 AM
We could cut spending, eliminate tax benefits for companies which build plants overseas, increase tariffs on products built in countries with lower environmental standards, hike the capital gains tax, etc. There are lots of ways to help ourselves without balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

Recall that during some of the United States' most prosperous times, the marginal rate for the wealthy was north of 90%.

XingTheRubicon
4/6/2011, 08:21 AM
I am sure "they" is a reference to both political parties.

Which party right now, is trying to correct the problem the most.

Okla-homey
4/6/2011, 08:25 AM
Whatever they do, I better get my gubmint checks (both of them) or there'll be hell to pay.;)

Seriously folks, and not to be all Debbie Downer, but this mess spells epic fail. As in the end of life in the US as we know it. And frankly, I don't think they can fix it by increasing taxes. It's also going to require scaling back and/or outright elimination of myriad entitlement programs. And no one in DC has the cajones or the political stroke to go there.

Therefore...we're toast.

SanJoaquinSooner
4/6/2011, 08:34 AM
Solution: No social security until you are 70. Get a job or start your own business.

No medicare after 70. You've lived a long life and if your family wants to take care of you and your medical expenses, fine. But no reason the taxpayer should. You didn't pay nearly enough into FICA to cover the costs.

End welfare. Throw away the oreos and get off the couch. If you can't, let grandma or the church or some do-gooder organization help you - not the taxpayer.

End prevailing wage laws.

Move toward more deregulation of small business. Let the employer decide **** instead of bureaucrats.

yermom
4/6/2011, 08:40 AM
Do we have the resolve to unplug grandma?

Of course, grandma votes a lot too though

SoonerProphet
4/6/2011, 08:45 AM
Which party right now, is trying to correct the problem the most.

Really?

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/06/whats-worse-than-ruinous

Great quote from the article, "{I}t's too bad there is no opposing party to keep the Republicans fiscally honest."

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 09:06 AM
Solution: No social security until you are 70. Get a job or start your own business.

No medicare after 70. You've lived a long life and if your family wants to take care of you and your medical expenses, fine. But no reason the taxpayer should. You didn't pay nearly enough into FICA to cover the costs.

End welfare. Throw away the oreos and get off the couch. If you can't, let grandma or the church or some do-gooder organization help you - not the taxpayer.

End prevailing wage laws.

Move toward more deregulation of small business. Let the employer decide **** instead of bureaucrats.

Damn...

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 09:09 AM
We could cut spending, eliminate tax benefits for companies which build plants overseas, increase tariffs on products built in countries with lower environmental standards, hike the capital gains tax, etc. There are lots of ways to help ourselves without balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

Recall that during some of the United States' most prosperous times, the marginal rate for the wealthy was north of 90%.

I don't have a problem with elimination of tax benefits for companies building outside the US..I like the tariff idea...

Don't like a LTCG tax increase..ST tax what you want...

Long term investors take a risk with their money...they help build companies and jobs...LTCG should stay around 15-20%...

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 09:15 AM
Solution: No social security until you are 70. Get a job or start your own business.

You do understand the entire reason social security was created was to get older people out of the workforce to create jobs for younger workers, right?


No medicare after 70. You've lived a long life and if your family wants to take care of you and your medical expenses, fine. But no reason the taxpayer should. You didn't pay nearly enough into FICA to cover the costs.

Instead of making corporations pay their fair share, unplug grandma. Yeah, that's moral.


End welfare. Throw away the oreos and get off the couch. If you can't, let grandma or the church or some do-gooder organization help you - not the taxpayer.

This is a sure way to ensure rioting in the streets, increased crime, etc. Apparently, you haven't ventured into certain areas of any given city. There are people who are factually unemployable. No one is going to hire some folks, and then...


End prevailing wage laws.

Even if they did, you'd condone them being paid slave wages. Do you want to create a permanent underclass? It's hard to be upwardly mobile in the world we have right now, if someone was limited to earning $3.00/hour for difficult manual labor, having to share an efficiency apartment with 5 other people, supporting children, I don't see how they're going to get by, or even eat.

History would tell you that government policies which literally condone people starving in the darkness result in things such as revolution. You probably have no idea how close the U.S. came to having a viable Communist revolution during the Great Depression. The sort of conditions your ideas would impose on people would make the Great Depression look like candyland.


Move toward more deregulation of small business. Let the employer decide **** instead of bureaucrats.

Do you have specifics? Or just more kid tested/mother approved boilerplate pablum? Regulations are in place to protect consumers and workers from unsafe practices. As a small business owner myself, the regulations imposed on me are not constraining at all. I suppose if I was in the waste disposal industry, I might have a thing or two to gritch about, but those regs are in place for good reason.

JohnnyMack
4/6/2011, 09:18 AM
Whatever they do, I better get my gubmint checks (both of them) or there'll be hell to pay.;)

Seriously folks, and not to be all Debbie Downer, but this mess spells epic fail. As in the end of life in the US as we know it. And frankly, I don't think they can fix it by increasing taxes. It's also going to require scaling back and/or outright elimination of myriad entitlement programs. And no one in DC has the cajones or the political stroke to go there.

Therefore...we're toast.

All the while you and your "Conservative" fellows rail against entitlement programs, ignoring the elephant in the room. Defense spending is a bloated, farcical mess.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 09:20 AM
I don't have a problem with elimination of tax benefits for companies building outside the US..I like the tariff idea...

Don't like a LTCG tax increase..ST tax what you want...

Long term investors take a risk with their money...they help build companies and jobs...LTCG should stay around 15-20%...

It'd sure hurt me, but why should money I earn as a result of wise investments be taxed lower than money I earn from my salary?

Capital gains are a great way for the wealthy to be taxed at a lower rate than everyone else. Income, no matter how you come by it ought to all be taxed the same.

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 09:21 AM
You do understand the entire reason social security was created was to get older people out of the workforce to create jobs for younger workers, right?



Instead of making corporations pay their fair share, unplug grandma. Yeah, that's moral.



This is a sure way to ensure rioting in the streets, increased crime, etc. Apparently, you haven't ventured into certain areas of any given city. There are people who are factually unemployable. No one is going to hire some folks, and then...



Even if they did, you'd condone them being paid slave wages. Do you want to create a permanent underclass? It's hard to be upwardly mobile in the world we have right now, if someone was limited to earning $3.00/hour for difficult manual labor, having to share an efficiency apartment with 5 other people, supporting children, I don't see how they're going to get by, or even eat.

History would tell you that government policies which literally condone people starving in the darkness result in things such as revolution. You probably have no idea how close the U.S. came to having a viable Communist revolution during the Great Depression. The sort of conditions your ideas would impose on people would make the Great Depression look like candyland.



Do you have specifics? Or just more kid tested/mother approved boilerplate pablum? Regulations are in place to protect consumers and workers from unsafe practices. As a small business owner myself, the regulations imposed on me are not constraining at all. I suppose if I was in the waste disposal industry, I might have a thing or two to gritch about, but those regs are in place for good reason.

Kid tested/mother approved...lol

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 09:21 AM
All the while you and your "Conservative" fellows rail against entitlement programs, ignoring the elephant in the room. Defense spending is a bloated, farcical mess.

Amen.

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 09:22 AM
We could cut spending, eliminate tax benefits for companies which build plants overseas, increase tariffs on products built in countries with lower environmental standards, hike the capital gains tax, etc. There are lots of ways to help ourselves without balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

Recall that during some of the United States' most prosperous times, the marginal rate for the wealthy was north of 90%.

And even then we could only pull in 18-19% of GDP. In fact, no matter what our tax policy has been, we have historically pulled in 18-19%. There is a reason that Ryan's proposal limits spending to 18-19%. We cannot afford to spend 24-25% of GDP like Obama wants to do for the forseeable future.

We can argue until the cows come home how to spend that 18-19%, and that is fine. There is no argument that we can afford more than that.

If the government wants to spend more money then it should do everything possible to make the GDP grow so that 18-19% grows.

Ike
4/6/2011, 09:24 AM
It'd sure hurt me, but why should money I earn as a result of wise investments be taxed lower than money I earn from my salary?

Capital gains are a great way for the wealthy to be taxed at a lower rate than everyone else. Income, no matter how you come by it ought to all be taxed the same.

I tend to agree with you, but the reasoning is usually that the wealthy risk losing that money when they invest it. Thats not horrible reasoning. We don't after all give them a tax refund on capital losses.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 09:28 AM
I tend to agree with you, but the reasoning is usually that the wealthy risk losing that money when they invest it. Thats not horrible reasoning. We don't after all give them a tax refund on capital losses.

They still get to deduct capital losses from gains, but you're right, there's a risk in investing. So what? When I go to work, I risk being fired or shot by some opposing party I push over the edge.

Why is investment risk more laudable in tax policy than any other kind of risk?

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 09:28 AM
It'd sure hurt me, but why should money I earn as a result of wise investments be taxed lower than money I earn from my salary?

Capital gains are a great way for the wealthy to be taxed at a lower rate than everyone else. Income, no matter how you come by it ought to all be taxed the same.

I understand your view...but...

It should be less than wages...you are taking a risk with the investment money...you might make a killing or you may lose every penny...it also creates new business and jobs...venture capitalists earn every penny of their investment...

To increase revenue you must grow GDP...Clinton balanced the budget by pulling in a record amount of cap gains..in fact, income tax revenue was lower after his tax increases...cap gains grew substantially and accounted for nearly all of revenue gains (corp revenue grew somewhat)...and he somehow managed to pull in those record amounts with a 15% LTCG rate...

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 09:29 AM
They still get to deduct capital losses from gains, but you're right, there's a risk in investing. So what? When I go to work, I risk being fired or shot by some opposing party I push over the edge.

Why is investment risk more laudable in tax policy than any other kind of risk?



Because we want people to save and invest money and not spend every nickle they earn...

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 09:31 AM
And even then we could only pull in 18-19% of GDP. In fact, no matter what our tax policy has been, we have historically pulled in 18-19%. There is a reason that Ryan's proposal limits spending to 18-19%. We cannot afford to spend 24-25% of GDP like Obama wants to do for the forseeable future.

We can argue until the cows come home how to spend that 18-19%, and that is fine. There is no argument that we can afford more than that.

If the government wants to spend more money then it should do everything possible to make the GDP grow so that 18-19% grows.

I tend to agree with you re: keeping the tax base the same. I think where we might part ways is that I do believe the wealthy and corporations have been waging a war on the middle class, and have created an economically untenable situation. Now, when push comes to shove, some of the folks here want to extract all of the additional spending cuts from the poor rather than allocate some of that to the wealthy when today, we have more income inequality than ever before.

I'd rather live in a country where everyone has a good shot at a middle class lifestyle, not just the folks who happen to win the sperm lottery.

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 09:31 AM
I am no fool...when you are on the opposing side of Midtowner you are usually on the wrong side...

I will now bow out gracefully....

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 09:33 AM
Because we want people to save and invest money and not spend every nickle they earn...

Do we? I mean, it'd still be smart to invest, no matter what the capital gains rate is. Over time, those investments really do pay off. But if folks just spend that money, it goes straight into the economy.

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 09:43 AM
I tend to agree with you re: keeping the tax base the same. I think where we might part ways is that I do believe the wealthy and corporations have been waging a war on the middle class, and have created an economically untenable situation. Now, when push comes to shove, some of the folks here want to extract all of the additional spending cuts from the poor rather than allocate some of that to the wealthy when today, we have more income inequality than ever before.

I'd rather live in a country where everyone has a good shot at a middle class lifestyle, not just the folks who happen to win the sperm lottery.

I'm not saying it is perfect, but I think Ryan's approach is trying to resolve that. He does cut taxes for the top bracket, but he wants to stop all the loopholes. Rich people and corporations get loopholes.. Not the common guy. So cut those out. In the end, he wants that to be revenue netural meaning overall the taxes don't change, just the way it is structured. I don't think there is any question that our tax code needs to be restructured.

The closer you can get to a flat tax or a tiered flat tax, the less corruption there will be in the tax code IMO. That is a good thing.

Ike
4/6/2011, 09:45 AM
I understand your view...but...

It should be less than wages...you are taking a risk with the investment money...you might make a killing or you may lose every penny...it also creates new business and jobs...venture capitalists earn every penny of their investment...




I don't disagree that investment creates new business and jobs...but so does high aggregate demand for goods and services (and thats really the thing thats killing us right now...aggregate demand is pretty low). You have to strike the right balance between encouraging investment and encouraging high demand. For example, if we get to a place where pretty much everyone except the filthy rich are living on subsistence wages, there aren't a lot of investment opportunities for those that are filthy rich to throw their money at, and a lot of money will simply stay on the sidelines, waiting for a better day....

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 09:53 AM
I don't disagree that investment creates new business and jobs...but so does high aggregate demand for goods and services (and thats really the thing thats killing us right now...aggregate demand is pretty low). You have to strike the right balance between encouraging investment and encouraging high demand. For example, if we get to a place where pretty much everyone except the filthy rich are living on subsistence wages, there aren't a lot of investment opportunities for those that are filthy rich to throw their money at, and a lot of money will simply stay on the sidelines, waiting for a better day....

You are right...you must have demand before you see growth on the supply side...

Consumer confidence was increasing the last I looked...with higher gas prices, wars, and nuke meltdowns I see confidence going lower...

Oh, and the initial post is inaccurate..BOTH taxes and spending must be changed...not an either/or...

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 09:53 AM
I'm not saying it is perfect, but I think Ryan's approach is trying to resolve that. He does cut taxes for the top bracket, but he wants to stop all the loopholes. Rich people and corporations get loopholes.. Not the common guy. So cut those out. In the end, he wants that to be revenue netural meaning overall the taxes don't change, just the way it is structured. I don't think there is any question that our tax code needs to be restructured.

The closer you can get to a flat tax or a tiered flat tax, the less corruption there will be in the tax code IMO. That is a good thing.

I believe Ryan when he says he wants to lower the margin on the top wage earners. I don't believe him about loopholes. He, nor his colleagues, nor the 70-page report (offered yesterday, I believe) referred to closing any specific loopholes. There was not one specific instance.

This legislation would be written mostly by lobbyists for the benefit of their very wealthy clients. That's the way it's always going to be unless the voters start throwing out incumbents who tolerate this sort of thing.

soonercruiser
4/6/2011, 10:02 AM
I'm not saying it is perfect, but I think Ryan's approach is trying to resolve that. He does cut taxes for the top bracket, but he wants to stop all the loopholes. Rich people and corporations get loopholes.. Not the common guy. So cut those out. In the end, he wants that to be revenue netural meaning overall the taxes don't change, just the way it is structured. I don't think there is any question that our tax code needs to be restructured.

The closer you can get to a flat tax or a tiered flat tax, the less corruption there will be in the tax code IMO. That is a good thing.

While I like all the ideas and his aggressive approach, I think that tackling both the deficit and the tax system at the same time is probably more than even most moderate Repubicans can swallow. (let alone the refusenik Demoncrats)

As for you LWers attacks on the Military budget...get off of it!
First - yes there are some ares that cut and efficiency (closing overseas bases) are called for.
But, 2 - It is the primary government responsibility written into the Constitution. And even your "Annointed One" can't seem to keep his hands off of playing with weapons toys.

You gut our military, the world suffers, and or we cease to exists as a nation.
You cut social programs, and people will be forced to become self sufficient, force families to help, or churches and local service programs to help.
After all, the Party of Death should be willing to accept a few deaths, in the face of 50 million abortions.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 10:07 AM
Cruiser, your sense of history and Constitutional purpose are severely underdeveloped. Washington himself, in perhaps one of the most important speeches in our nation's history warned us to beware of foreign entanglements.

Even Washington's biggest political rival, Jefferson, didn't engage in overseas adventures until Tripoli's pirates had put a serious dent in American-European trade.

We then operated under the Monroe Doctrine, which kept our military intervention limited to the Americas, in preventing European powers from interfering in our sphere of influence from the early 19th century, basically until WWI.

There is simply no Constitutional or historical truth to support your American Messiah Complex where it comes to foreign intervention.

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 10:09 AM
I believe Ryan when he says he wants to lower the margin on the top wage earners. I don't believe him about loopholes. He, nor his colleagues, nor the 70-page report (offered yesterday, I believe) referred to closing any specific loopholes. There was not one specific instance.

This legislation would be written mostly by lobbyists for the benefit of their very wealthy clients. That's the way it's always going to be unless the voters start throwing out incumbents who tolerate this sort of thing.

I'm not sure what you are expecting when you say not one specific instance. He talks at length about it and what his broad plan is.


The United States currently labors under the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. Corporate income taxes create large distortions in economic activity, changing corporate behavior in ways that
reduce efficiency and create a drag on growth.

Instead of making the corporate tax code more competitive by reducing rates across the board, Congress has responded to corporate complaints about this high tax burden by filling the code with loopholes and special carve-outs. The biggest corporations that can afford the best lawyers have figured out how to use the code to avoid paying taxes altogether. It is the smaller companies that suffer disproportionately from an unfair and complex corporate tax code and high corporate rates.

This budget would offset lower rates with a broader base, scaling back or eliminating entirely the deductions and credits that have skewed corporate behavior and benefitted the largest corporations disproportionately.
Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market. A single low, fair andsimple rate is as good for American businesses as it is for the individual Americans they employ.

You seem to agree with Paul Ryan in that the more money you have the more influence you have on the tax code. That is why it needs to be simplified and closer to a flat tax, which appears to be what he is trying to do.

I'm not here to defend Paul Ryan and if you distrust him because you distrust all politicians, I don't blame you. But he does address your concerns.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 10:15 AM
Ryan says he wants to close loopholes.

Fine. Which ones?

All of them?

Lowering rates is specific. It tells me exactly what you are going to do. Closing "loopholes" is just repeating buzzwords. He could close two loopholes which allow 1-year accelerated depreciation for tax horse buggy whips and coal cars for steam engines and he has "closed loopholes."

The biggest problem with corporate loopholes is the tax advantages they realize from building plants overseas. Items they reimport ought to be given tariffs high enough to offset the cost advantages of foreign manufacturing.

That'd give domestic manufacturing, jobs and the middle class a shot at a serious resurgence. I'm not sold on free trade. NAFTA has been horrible for the American worker.

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 10:20 AM
Ryan says he wants to close loopholes.

Fine. Which ones?

All of them?

Lowering rates is specific. It tells me exactly what you are going to do. Closing "loopholes" is just repeating buzzwords. He could close two loopholes which allow 1-year accelerated depreciation for tax horse buggy whips and coal cars for steam engines and he has "closed loopholes."

The biggest problem with corporate loopholes is the tax advantages they realize from building plants overseas. Items they reimport ought to be given tariffs high enough to offset the cost advantages of foreign manufacturing.

That'd give domestic manufacturing, jobs and the middle class a shot at a serious resurgence. I'm not sold on free trade. NAFTA has been horrible for the American worker.

I blindly agree with your comments on manufacturing and tariffs...blindly because I do not know enough about current agreements to make a case...

But something is damn sure wrong...there must be huge overseas benefits that are not taken into account when trade laws are signed...we seem to be on the short end of the stick...

10 years ago Pep Boys was selling an import tire at a retail price that was lower than the plant manufacturing cost at the most modern plant in the Goodyear organization...

Caboose
4/6/2011, 10:27 AM
Why doesn't the government just calculate how much it spent the prior year, divide it by the number of tax-payers and send each of them a bill for their share?

I guarantee you the spending problem would be fixed after year one.

NormanPride
4/6/2011, 10:34 AM
Why don't we experiment with some of these changes on some of the smaller countries that we've "liberated"? I mean, try a flat tax in Iraq. Change the way defense spending is handled in Libya (once we've liberated it). Etc, etc...

What is our military for right now? It used to be there to combat the other armies out there that could attack us. I don't think anyone wants to attack us like that, and if they did it would be fairly simple to draft up a standing army that could compete. What I see now is using a big stick to try and beat up bees. We need to re-think what "military strength" is now, and change the way we do things.

StoopTroup
4/6/2011, 10:38 AM
Once the Government Shuts down I'm gonna go get me one of those sweet M1 Tanks we have laying around. :D ;)

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 10:40 AM
Ryan says he wants to close loopholes.

Fine. Which ones?

All of them?

Lowering rates is specific. It tells me exactly what you are going to do. Closing "loopholes" is just repeating buzzwords. He could close two loopholes which allow 1-year accelerated depreciation for tax horse buggy whips and coal cars for steam engines and he has "closed loopholes."

The biggest problem with corporate loopholes is the tax advantages they realize from building plants overseas. Items they reimport ought to be given tariffs high enough to offset the cost advantages of foreign manufacturing.

That'd give domestic manufacturing, jobs and the middle class a shot at a serious resurgence. I'm not sold on free trade. NAFTA has been horrible for the American worker.

He has said it is not his job to do that. He is the Chair of the House Budget committee. He has said it is his job to come up with a budget and paint with a broad brush. It is the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Rep Dave Camp's job to get into the weeds of the actual tax code.

This is the first step of a long process.

What are your thoughts on a flat tax or getting closer to flat tax and removing loopholes?

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 10:43 AM
He has said it is not his job to do that. He is the Chair of the House Budget committee. He has said it is his job to come up with a budget and paint with a broad brush. It is the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Rep Dave Camp's job to get into the weeds of the actual tax code.

This is the first step of a long process.

What are your thoughts on a flat tax or getting closer to flat tax and removing loopholes?

I can go with a flat tax but the rate will be at or near 30%....

StoopTroup
4/6/2011, 10:47 AM
Since there's no regulation can I rent out my backyard and allow BP to drill?

If not.....can we shut down the State Government too?

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 10:48 AM
What are your thoughts on a flat tax or getting closer to flat tax and removing loopholes?

I'm not sure it's totally workable, especially for the lower wage earners. Keep in mind, filing jointly, your first $68K of income is taxed at 15%. Then, lower wage earners benefit a lot from other tax credits, like the earned income credit, deductions for dependents, child care credits, etc., which makes their effective rate probably a lot lower than 15% as a whole.

This would be a huge tax increase on the middle class. I'm not sure they could absorb it as most in that range are living paycheck to paycheck. Taking away an additional 10% or so of their income might give us another round of foreclosures, cause havoc in the real estate markets, etc.

On the other end of that, the wealthy don't really get the benefit of a lot of those credits as they aren't eligible after a certain income level, so they'd see that top marginal rate drop about 10%.

So again, you're balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. It sounds good in principle, but once you take even a brief look at it, it doesn't seem to even be workable in our current economic climate.

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 10:50 AM
I can go with a flat tax but the rate will be at or near 30%....

I think the President's Commission suggested a corporate tax rate around 26% and Ryan is saying 25%. Should I call it the President' Commission? He disowned that thing faster than an ugly stepchild.

I am unclear what he wants for personal income. I know he wants to simplify it from 6 brackets to three, but I am unsure what all the rates would be, top would be around 25%.

I think he wants to get rid of the mortage deduction as well, but I don't think that will ever fly in Congress.

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 10:52 AM
I'm not sure it's totally workable, especially for the lower wage earners. Keep in mind, filing jointly, your first $68K of income is taxed at 15%. Then, lower wage earners benefit a lot from other tax credits, like the earned income credit, deductions for dependents, child care credits, etc., which makes their effective rate probably a lot lower than 15% as a whole.

This would be a huge tax increase on the middle class. I'm not sure they could absorb it as most in that range are living paycheck to paycheck. Taking away an additional 10% or so of their income might give us another round of foreclosures, cause havoc in the real estate markets, etc.

On the other end of that, the wealthy don't really get the benefit of a lot of those credits as they aren't eligible after a certain income level, so they'd see that top marginal rate drop about 10%.

So again, you're balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. It sounds good in principle, but once you take even a brief look at it, it doesn't seem to even be workable in our current economic climate.

Yep, to make it work you would have to add loopholes...and I hate loopholes...

No tax on food or medicine...

There would still be a need for cap gains...but I don't want to discuss that item...:)

soonercruiser
4/6/2011, 10:59 AM
Cruiser, your sense of history and Constitutional purpose are severely underdeveloped. Washington himself, in perhaps one of the most important speeches in our nation's history warned us to beware of foreign entanglements.

Even Washington's biggest political rival, Jefferson, didn't engage in overseas adventures until Tripoli's pirates had put a serious dent in American-European trade.

We then operated under the Monroe Doctrine, which kept our military intervention limited to the Americas, in preventing European powers from interfering in our sphere of influence from the early 19th century, basically until WWI.

There is simply no Constitutional or historical truth to support your American Messiah Complex where it comes to foreign intervention.

What the he11 is that Messiah complex you reference?
(If you are referring to BHO, you should ask him.) :rolleyes:

As for underdevelopment, that might be your common sense.
History is one thing.
But the reality is, even your Messiah can't keep from projecting our military power overseas.

I agree with something someone else posted last week....about getting involved in "other's" battles.
The reality is......if it weren't for the French getting "involved" in our fight, we wouldn't likely be the nation that we are now.
That's reality!

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 11:04 AM
I'm not sure it's totally workable, especially for the lower wage earners. Keep in mind, filing jointly, your first $68K of income is taxed at 15%. Then, lower wage earners benefit a lot from other tax credits, like the earned income credit, deductions for dependents, child care credits, etc., which makes their effective rate probably a lot lower than 15% as a whole.

This would be a huge tax increase on the middle class. I'm not sure they could absorb it as most in that range are living paycheck to paycheck. Taking away an additional 10% or so of their income might give us another round of foreclosures, cause havoc in the real estate markets, etc.

On the other end of that, the wealthy don't really get the benefit of a lot of those credits as they aren't eligible after a certain income level, so they'd see that top marginal rate drop about 10%.

So again, you're balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. It sounds good in principle, but once you take even a brief look at it, it doesn't seem to even be workable in our current economic climate.

You cannot balance our budget the way it is on the backs of the rich even they don't make enough money. The tax base must be broadened. The President's Commission suggested tax rates of 8, 14, and 23%. So if the lowest rate now is 15% and we cut out loopholes, but cut the rate in half, are we really that far off?

soonercruiser
4/6/2011, 11:06 AM
I think the President's Commission suggested a corporate tax rate around 26% and Ryan is saying 25%. Should I call it the President' Commission? He disowned that thing faster than an ugly stepchild.

I am unclear what he wants for personal income. I know he wants to simplify it from 6 brackets to three, but I am unsure what all the rates would be, top would be around 25%.

I think he wants to get rid of the mortage deduction as well, but I don't think that will ever fly in Congress.

This why it may be asking to tackle 2 things at one.
The concept is simple (if you lower my tax rate, I don't need that mortgage deduction).
That's why we need more young blood in Congress, the old guys probably can't think their way through (their ideology) to work through the math.
They just can't do it! :(

Jacie
4/6/2011, 11:11 AM
If the U.S. were not spending $190,000,000 per day in Afghanistan I bet the budget would look a whole lot better . . .

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 11:13 AM
You cannot balance our budget the way it is on the backs of the rich even they don't make enough money.

The rich and the corporations could probably afford a lot more than they pay right now.

In the U.S., where the top 1/4 of citizens own 87% of the country's wealth, it certainly does paint a picture to me that this top fourth or top whatever would be better equipped to shoulder more of the overall increased tax burden than the second 1/4 who have 13% of the wealth or the bottom half who have <1%.

REDREX
4/6/2011, 11:25 AM
If the U.S. were not spending $190,000,000 per day in Afghanistan I bet the budget would look a whole lot better . . .----I bet the budget would look at lot better if Barack had not wasted $850 Billion on a " STIMULUS" plan that failed

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 11:25 AM
The rich and the corporations could probably afford a lot more than they pay right now.

In the U.S., where the top 1/4 of citizens own 87% of the country's wealth, it certainly does paint a picture to me that this top fourth or top whatever would be better equipped to shoulder more of the overall increased tax burden than the second 1/4 who have 13% of the wealth or the bottom half who have <1%.

The top 1% of taxpayers pay more than the bottom 50%..

How much out of every dollar are you comfortable taking from anyone in this country? 50 cents? 75 cent? 90 cents?

soonerscuba
4/6/2011, 11:37 AM
The top 1% of taxpayers pay more than the bottom 50%..

How much out of every dollar are you comfortable taking from anyone in this country? 50 cents? 75 cent? 90 cents?Minimum 5% from everybody moving up progressively to 45% passed some astonishing, arbitrary number, say after $10m. Remove the SS cap and deductions for second mortgages. Keep the cuts, including farm and ethanol subsidy and defense. To do this, there must be a fundamental shift in the presidential primary process and a Congress with an utter disregard to their job security. In short, a miracle.

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 11:41 AM
If the U.S. were not spending $190,000,000 per day in Afghanistan I bet the budget would look a whole lot better . . .

Small potatoes, unfortunately. If you took the cost of the entire wars of Afghanistan and Iraq from the very beginning back in 2001 and added them all together(1.1 trillion) then subtracted that from just this year's budget deficit(1.6 trillion) we would still have a half a TRILLION dollar deficit.. For just one year.

Now, if you did subtract that, this year's deficit would be almost the same size as Bush's annual deficits from 2006 and 2007... Combined.

It is difficult to conceptualize the increase of spending under Obama.

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 11:43 AM
Minimum 5% from everybody moving up progressively to 45% passed some astonishing, arbitrary number, say after $10m. Remove the SS cap and deductions for second mortgages. Keep the cuts, including farm and ethanol subsidy and defense. To do this, there must be a fundamental shift in the presidential primary process and a Congress with an utter disregard to their job security. In short, a miracle.

http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x4519678/young_businessman_holding_breath_and_turning_blue_ bld002462.jpg

Ike
4/6/2011, 11:43 AM
Small potatoes, unfortunately. If you took the cost of the entire wars of Afghanistan and Iraq from the very beginning back in 2001 and added them all together(1.1 trillion) then subtracted that from just this year's budget deficit(1.6 trillion) we would stiff have a half a TRILLION dollar deficit.. For just one year.

Now, if you did subtract that, this year's deficit would be almost the same size as Bush's annual deficits from 2006 and 2007... Combined.

It is difficult to conceptualize the increase of spending under Obama.

Except that the majority of the increase to the deficit under Obama has come not from increased spending, but decreased revenue....And the spending increases that have happened have been 1 off things, not things that continue from year to year (stimulus, bailouts, etc...)

soonercruiser
4/6/2011, 11:45 AM
If we don't get at least a minor miracle - the country is doomed!

REDREX
4/6/2011, 11:46 AM
Except that the majority of the increase to the deficit under Obama has come not from increased spending, but decreased revenue....And the spending increases that have happened have been 1 off things, not things that continue from year to year (stimulus, bailouts, etc...)---What a plan ---We have less money but lets keep spending---Sounds like the plan of a 10 year old

soonerscuba
4/6/2011, 11:50 AM
---What a plan ---We have less money but lets keep spending---Sounds like the plan of a 10 year oldIt's pretty much been the plan for 30 years. People get the government the deserve, I think this is a natural result of an academically conservative but functionally liberal electorate.

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 12:00 PM
Except that the majority of the increase to the deficit under Obama has come not from increased spending, but decreased revenue....And the spending increases that have happened have been 1 off things, not things that continue from year to year (stimulus, bailouts, etc...)

Simply not true.

In 2007 the budget was 2.7 trillion. Federal revenue was around 2.5 trillion. In 2008 revenue stayed about the same. In 2009 it dropped about 520 billion and in 2010 revenue increased slightly and it was about an even 500 billion and revenue was at 2.16 trillioni.

So the revenue side has dropped about 500 billion.

On the spending side we started with 2.7 trillion in 2007. 2.9 trillion in 2008, 3.5 trillion in 2009, 3.5 trillion in 2010, 3.8 trillion in 2011(forecasted). And what does Obama's own budget say about the years afterward? 3.7 trillion in 2012 and 2013 and 3.9 trillion in spending in 2014.

Spending from 2007 to 2009 increased by a trillion dollars and stays above that under Obama's budget for pretty much forever. You cannot write that off as one off things.

Annual spending has exploded under Obama.

EDIT: I should also add that the revenue of 2.568 trillion in 2007 was the highest revenue ever in our country's history and still is. 2005-2008 were extremely good years as far as federal revenues are concerned.

SouthCarolinaSooner
4/6/2011, 12:33 PM
Smash the state

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 12:39 PM
Minimum 5% from everybody moving up progressively to 45% passed some astonishing, arbitrary number, say after $10m. Remove the SS cap and deductions for second mortgages. Keep the cuts, including farm and ethanol subsidy and defense. To do this, there must be a fundamental shift in the presidential primary process and a Congress with an utter disregard to their job security. In short, a miracle.

Scuba,

when you say 45% do you mean 45% federal or 45% total is what you are comfortable with? Some states have income taxes around 10% and Hawaii is 11% for the highest income. That would make it 56% for the highest bracket? Just trying to clarify what your thoughts are.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 12:41 PM
The top 1% of taxpayers pay more than the bottom 50%..

Yes, and that should be looked at as a problem. Income inequality in this country is at the root of lots of big issues.


How much out of every dollar are you comfortable taking from anyone in this country? 50 cents? 75 cent? 90 cents?

I'm not sure. If I was a policy maker, this is the sort of question I'd pose to some egghead economist. How much would the wealthy be willing to take on before folks start asking "who is John Galt"?

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 01:05 PM
Yes, and that should be looked at as a problem. Income inequality in this country is at the root of lots of big issues.

I'm not sure. If I was a policy maker, this is the sort of question I'd pose to some egghead economist. How much would the wealthy be willing to take on before folks start asking "who is John Galt"?

This isn't a policy maker question, it is a personal one. As a percentage, what is the maximum amount of one's income that the government should be able to take?

There is no right or wrong answer, it is an opinion.

Bourbon St Sooner
4/6/2011, 03:01 PM
We could cut spending, eliminate tax benefits for companies which build plants overseas, increase tariffs on products built in countries with lower environmental standards, hike the capital gains tax, etc. There are lots of ways to help ourselves without balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

Recall that during some of the United States' most prosperous times, the marginal rate for the wealthy was north of 90%.

Is "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor" an ingrained liberal talking point? Maybe the poor will fare better in the impending hyperinflation.

Protectionism never has any economic repercussions. See 1930s.

Bourbon St Sooner
4/6/2011, 03:07 PM
This is a sure way to ensure rioting in the streets, increased crime, etc. Apparently, you haven't ventured into certain areas of any given city. There are people who are factually unemployable. No one is going to hire some folks, and then...


Apparently you haven't been to areas of a city were welfare and public housing are prevalent. There's certainly no crime in those places.

SoonerNate
4/6/2011, 03:50 PM
The rich and the corporations could probably afford a lot more than they pay right now.

In the U.S., where the top 1/4 of citizens own 87% of the country's wealth, it certainly does paint a picture to me that this top fourth or top whatever would be better equipped to shoulder more of the overall increased tax burden than the second 1/4 who have 13% of the wealth or the bottom half who have <1%.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it Lib Boy.

GKeeper316
4/6/2011, 03:57 PM
its funny how the pubs bitch and complain about out of control tax rates while at the same time demanding government provide the same services.

instead of going after programs like head start, that help low income families, go after they guys recording record profits.

this bull**** about lower corporate taxes crerating jobs is just that... bull****. if that were true, then why hasnt corporate america been creating jobs over the last 10 years? they've had tax breaks for so long that by their reasoning, we should all be working.

they dont want tax breaks to create more jobs. any economist will tell you that jobs aren't created just for the sake of putting someone to work.

SoonerNate
4/6/2011, 03:59 PM
its funny how the pubs bitch and complain about out of control tax rates while at the same time demanding government provide the same services.

instead of going after programs like head start, that help low income families, go after they guys recording record profits.

this bull**** about lower corporate taxes crerating jobs is just that... bull****. if that were true, then why hasnt corporate america been creating jobs over the last 10 years? they've had tax breaks for so long that by their reasoning, we should all be working.

they dont want tax breaks to create more jobs. any economist will tell you that jobs aren't created just for the sake of putting someone to work.

You libs are the only ones I ever here of "going after" anyone with your Marxist bull**** class warfare rhetoric.

GKeeper316
4/6/2011, 04:01 PM
You libs are the only ones I ever here of "going after" anyone with your Marxist bull**** class warfare rhetoric.

change the channel once in a while. fox is not a reliable source for news.

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 04:04 PM
its funny how the pubs bitch and complain about out of control tax rates while at the same time demanding government provide the same services.

instead of going after programs like head start, that help low income families, go after they guys recording record profits.

this bull**** about lower corporate taxes crerating jobs is just that... bull****. if that were true, then why hasnt corporate america been creating jobs over the last 10 years? they've had tax breaks for so long that by their reasoning, we should all be working.

they dont want tax breaks to create more jobs. any economist will tell you that jobs aren't created just for the sake of putting someone to work.

You are doing the same thing as Nate...ranting about a subject and not attempting to understand the causes/reasons for current problems....

SoonerNate
4/6/2011, 04:04 PM
change the channel once in a while. fox is not a reliable source for news.

Turn off your tingle up my leg boys over on MSNBC. "Whoa is us if the government is going to shut down all hell is going to erupt!!!"

It's such an important matter than your boy hopped aboard his airplane and left town!

SoonerNate
4/6/2011, 04:07 PM
You are doing the same thing as Nate...ranting about a subject and not attempting to understand the causes/reasons for current problems....

We all know damn well why we are in this situation. The libs have never met an entitlement they are not for and the Reps have never met a war they didn't want.

pphilfran
4/6/2011, 04:08 PM
We all know damn well why we are in this situation. The libs have never met an entitlement they are not for and the Reps have never met a war they didn't want.

True....

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 05:15 PM
Is "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor" an ingrained liberal talking point? Maybe the poor will fare better in the impending hyperinflation.

It's what's being proposed. You want to raise their tax rates and take away their services while not increasing the tax burden on the wealthy... in fact you want to decrease the burden on the wealthy. You may not like to hear it, but yes, in fact, you are proposing to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.


Protectionism never has any economic repercussions. See 1930s.

Sure. Look at China. Their protectionist measures have been horrible to them.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 05:18 PM
Life isn't fair. Deal with it Lib Boy.

I'm not a liberal at all, but I do want what is fair for people, and structuring a tax code, we ought to try to achieve the most fair outcome. Certainly increasing the % of GDP solely based on spending cuts targeted at a certain demographic while raising their taxes isn't a fair outcome.

And as far as 87% of the wealth being with 25% of the people, that's a statistic which means real long-term consequences for 100% of Americans. The middle class is shrinking, and you'd be happy with policies which would tend to accelerate that. No es bueno.

sappstuf
4/6/2011, 05:19 PM
Turn off your tingle up my leg boys over on MSNBC. "Whoa is us if the government is going to shut down all hell is going to erupt!!!"

It's such an important matter than your boy hopped aboard his airplane and left town!

Nothing screams "budget crisis" like flying up to New York and meeting with Al Sharpton....

OU_Sooners75
4/6/2011, 05:28 PM
Like I said in another thread. The first step in spending cuts should start with how much the government employees (elected, nominated, volunteer, and civilian) make.

The following does not include how much it cost to provide insurance to all federal employees.


The first step that the government needs to make in cutting budget is the pay of all High ranking federal employees...both elected and nominated!

I do not think they should cut Military Employee Pay or Civilian Pay...but the elected officials and their staffs plus the nominated employees make WAAAAYYY too damn much money!

Total US government payroll which includes civilian and military pay:
$194,879,647,864.00 (through 2009) And yes, that is almost $195 BILLION in payroll.

Total Payroll for Elected and Nominated Officials. (This is only for Top diplomats and the elected and nominated officials of the three branches of government.):

President: $450,000
Vice President: $230,700
Ranking Cabinet Members and Officers: $196,700 each (total of $4,130,000)
Speaker of the House: $223,500
House and Senate Leaders: $193,400 each (total of $967,000)
Members of the House and Senate: $174,000 (total $92,046,000)
Chief Justice of US Supreme Court: $217,400
Associate Justice of US Supreme Court: $208,100 each (total $1,248,600)
US Appeals Judge: $175,100 each (total $31,342,900)
US Appeals Judge of the Armed Forces: $175,100 each (total: $875,500)
US District Court Judges (includes district judges, tax judges, international trade judges claims judges): $165,200 each (total $119,274,400)
Bankruptcy and Magistrates: $151,984 each (total $99,245,552)

Grand Total for just the Elected and Nominated Officials: $350,252,252.00

And this is just their PAY Checks!!!! This does not include the great benefits that they have the luxury of you and I paying for, like Insurance, retirement, and travel expenses.

I did not included the payroll of other executive branch workers that are nominated or the aides and workers of the elected congress people so here those are. Includes all Deputy Secretaries, Heads of Departments, White House employees (butler to gardener to Chef), Special assistance to the president, aides to congresspeople, etc:
Total Payroll of these people: $703,151,192.00

GKeeper316
4/6/2011, 05:31 PM
It's such an important matter than your boy hopped aboard his airplane and left town!

50 years ago, this might be a problem. but existing technology makes it possible to get hold of anyone in the world anywhere in the world at any time.

OU_Sooners75
4/6/2011, 06:06 PM
Here is a list (from A to Z) of federal agencies. Go ahead and look through them...and decide which ones do we not need! There are quite a few that have no practical reasons why they are getting funded by our tax dollars to operate. And most of those could do very good as charities, not federal government agencies!

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml


Foreign Policy Budget for 2011: $61.4 billion
Sure some of that is the cost to operate in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan...but this is a 13% increase from 2010 for the entire budget.

$225 million goes to the Lebanon Armed Forces
$400 million goes to the economic assistance of West bank and Gaza.
$3 billion to the United Nations.
From 1948-2006 the US has given Israel over $156 Billion. (For some reason I cannot find how much we give them each year). But in 2005, we gave them $2.6 billion. I will just assume that the number is up to around $3 Billion now.
$1.2 billion to Egypt.


This is just a very abbreviated search on how much the United States gives to everyone in the world.

Want to cut some budget? stop sending money to countries. Aid is one thing, like food. But when you are sending money to fund other armed forces around the world, what the hell good does this do for us? Want to cut some more, give the government a pay cut!

Give congress a Per Diem for days they are in session and in their seats/offices in Washington. same for their aides and workers. This should also include the Vice President since he/she oversees the Senate.

Cut the President's pay down from $450,000 to something much less.

Lebanon, an enemy of Israel, we give them $225 million a year? What the ****????

Millions and even billions to research plant and animal diseases, how fast ketchup flows and **** like that?

This is not a democrat vs republican issue. this is a spending issue and the US just spends way to much to keep other governments happy.

IMO, screw the rest of the world...spend that money on our debt and the issues we have in this nation!

Gandalf_The_Grey
4/6/2011, 07:01 PM
Well there is wasted money like in say Libya. Yes, it is heart wrenching that poor civilians(including women and children) are going to get killed by Gaddafi. Well civilians got killed during the American Revolution too. If those people really want to be free, we don't need to help them. As they said in Jurassic Park "Life finds a way" The American colonist defeated the most powerful army in the whole wide world not they had some hidden weapon. They won because they fought harder and knew the terrains.The Libyans would have found a way to overthrow him if they really wanted it

Okla-homey
4/6/2011, 08:27 PM
We all know damn well why we are in this situation. The libs have never met an entitlement they are not for and the Reps have never met a war they didn't want.

Its even suckier than that. The Lib-in-Chief has started his own war.

Okla-homey
4/6/2011, 08:34 PM
Well there is wasted money like in say Libya. Yes, it is heart wrenching that poor civilians(including women and children) are going to get killed by Gaddafi.

I find it difficult to care about a people who hate us. And that goes for both sides in this Libyan jihadist coup against the sociopath that has been running that place for 35 years. Those jihadi jackholes turned on Khaddafi because he made kissy-kissy with the Brits and Obama.

And frankly, I recall encountering far too many east Libyans fighting with the Taliban in Assscrackistan to give a bucket of spit Libya or Libyans. The best outcome would be if the two sides obliterated each other leaving nothing but the light sweet crude under their desert sands.

SanJoaquinSooner
4/6/2011, 08:52 PM
If you want to fix the damned budget, put your mouth where the money is and show us how:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

SoonerNate
4/6/2011, 09:03 PM
If you want to fix the damned budget, put your mouth where the money is and show us how:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

If you want to fix the budget vote Republican. The Dumocrats are proving they don't intend to. Hell, they didn't last year.

JohnnyMack
4/6/2011, 10:11 PM
If you want to fix the budget vote Republican. The Dumocrats are proving they don't intend to. Hell, they didn't last year.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BDysdKuiN_0/S4V-e1LJ_HI/AAAAAAAAAQM/T4XFYOlxi5Y/s320/confused+Bush.jpg

SoonerNate
4/6/2011, 10:19 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BDysdKuiN_0/S4V-e1LJ_HI/AAAAAAAAAQM/T4XFYOlxi5Y/s320/confused+Bush.jpg

Is that the best you've got? Your boy is more interested in his brackets or going on the Daily Show than he is of doing his job. Tell me sir, what has your Messiah accomplished?

A: NOT A DAMN THING

He "plays President" the way a little girl "plays house."

StoopTroup
4/6/2011, 10:26 PM
I must have missed the part where GWB did something good for our Country. :confused:

SoonerNate
4/6/2011, 10:30 PM
I must have missed the part where GWB did something good for our Country. :confused:

Helped turn the economy around after the largest attack in US history.

Record minority home ownership

Wanna compare unemployment rates to Obama?

Freed 50 million people in the Middle East of tyranny.

Respected the office of the Presidency unlike bl*w job Clinton or this clown.

Saluted the flag

Has his birth certificate

First President with an MBA

First President to have a degree from both Harvard and Yale.

JohnnyMack
4/6/2011, 10:37 PM
Is that the best you've got? Your boy is more interested in his brackets or going on the Daily Show than he is of doing his job. Tell me sir, what has your Messiah accomplished?

A: NOT A DAMN THING

He "plays President" the way a little girl "plays house."

I love that angry white men across America freely use the pejorative "boy" when referring to Obama, but that's a total aside.

BHO isn't someone I'm a big fan of, but I also think W is a turd of the highest order.

SoonerNate
4/6/2011, 10:40 PM
I love that angry white men across America freely use the pejorative "boy" when referring to Obama, but that's a total aside.

BHO isn't someone I'm a big fan of, but I also think W is a turd of the highest order.

I feel ya but you have to realize a couple of things. He isn't any more black than he is white.

And I personally campaigned for an "actual" black man and he won and is my Rep right now. (Allen West)

Bush did some good things and pissed me off on quite a few things as well.

I haven't seen anything that Obama's done yet that I like aside from a small business tax break last fall.

MamaMia
4/6/2011, 10:42 PM
Congress needs to stop spending more money than they take in. That means no more favors for campaign contributors.

MamaMia
4/6/2011, 11:25 PM
I feel ya but you have to realize a couple of things. He isn't any more black than he is white.

And I personally campaigned for an "actual" black man and he won and is my Rep right now. (Allen West)

Bush did some good things and pissed me off on quite a few things as well.

I haven't seen anything that Obama's done yet that I like aside from a small business tax break last fall. What he did was to extend the tax break already put in place by Bush.

SoonerNate
4/6/2011, 11:29 PM
What he did was to extend the tax break already put in place by Bush.

Yes he did that but prior to last winter he signed:

1. A New Small Business Health Care Tax Credit
2. A New Tax Credit for Hiring Unemployed Workers
3. Bonus Depreciation Tax Incentives to Support New Investment
4. 75% Exclusion of Small Business Capital Gains
5. Expansion of Limits on Small Business Expensing
6. Five-Year Carryback of Net Operating Losses
7. Reduction of the Built-In Gains Holding Period for Small Businesses from 10 to 7 Years to Allow Small Business Greater Flexibility in Their Investments
8. Temporary Small Business Estimated Tax Payment Relief to Allow Small Businesses to Keep Needed Cash on Hand

OU_Sooners75
4/7/2011, 12:52 AM
If you want to fix the budget vote Republican. The Dumocrats are proving they don't intend to. Hell, they didn't last year.

If you want to fix the budget...start thinking with your own brain instead of listening to the party leaders.

Try it sometime...you may impress yourself.

SoonerNate
4/7/2011, 12:56 AM
If you want to fix the budget...start thinking with your own brain instead of listening to the party leaders.

Try it sometime...you may impress yourself.

I impress myself everytime I step into the shower pal.

Not sure you noticed but I just gave Obama credit for a few measures regarding small businesses. Don't quite get how that makes me towing the party line as you suggest.

OU_Sooners75
4/7/2011, 01:00 AM
Helped turn the economy around after the largest attack in US history.

President has nothing to do with economy. Believe it or not, we live in a free capitalist economy.

Record minority home ownership

Again, how does a President effect who buys home? BTW, did you see the fallout with all those bad loans for home?

Wanna compare unemployment rates to Obama?

Again, President does not control employment rate.

Freed 50 million people in the Middle East of tyranny.

50 million? Try 60 million. Oh, he didnt free them either.

Respected the office of the Presidency unlike bl*w job Clinton or this clown.

You mean respecting the office like lying to the American public? Or by enforcing the Patriot Act which effectively took some of our constitutional rights and pushed them to the side?

Saluted the flag

Obama hasn't?

Has his birth certificate

Have you seen it?

First President with an MBA

And what good has that done for him? Every business he has ran, he has led it to its failure!

First President to have a degree from both Harvard and Yale.

And this means what? He got both thanks to his fathers connections. C Student anyone?

Don't forget that he makes us his own words too! And can barely put a sentence together.

Look, I liked Bush. I thought he is was no nonsense guy and we needed that. But do not try to sit there and push that he was a great president on anyone. He wasn't.

OU_Sooners75
4/7/2011, 01:02 AM
I impress myself everytime I step into the shower pal.

Not sure you noticed but I just gave Obama credit for a few measures regarding small businesses. Don't quite get how that makes me towing the party line as you suggest.

got three mirrors in the shower? :eek:

I dont care if you gave Obama credit. I don't think Obama is a very good president either.

But you are tooting a horn that is very much Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and not your own!

StoopTroup
4/7/2011, 01:23 AM
Don't quite get how that makes me towing the party line as you suggest.

i will say this....the last few days i have notice you've taken a more middle of the road approach. I'm neither Pub or Dem anymore as neither Of them deserve to have any of us as constituents IMO.

SoonerNate
4/7/2011, 01:31 AM
i will say this....the last few days i have notice you've taken a more middle of the road approach. I'm neither Pub or Dem anymore as neither Of them deserve to have any of us as constituents IMO.

I'm not. I didn't care much for W. I didn't care for his motives. He came across as more the spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce than the American people. (see his immigration policies)

As far as Obama, he has governed completely differently than the way he campaigned. I really liked his ideas on transparency. But the entire Cult of Personality ordeal really turned me off and he hasn't seemed to display much leadership whatsoever with events such as the oil spill, Egypt, Libya. He seems to be a day or week late to the party.

I also like to throw in some hyperbole from time to time just for ****s and giggles (ie my John Edwards thread).

dwarthog
4/7/2011, 07:51 AM
I'm not a liberal at all, but I do want what is fair for people, and structuring a tax code, we ought to try to achieve the most fair outcome. Certainly increasing the % of GDP solely based on spending cuts targeted at a certain demographic while raising their taxes isn't a fair outcome.

And as far as 87% of the wealth being with 25% of the people, that's a statistic which means real long-term consequences for 100% of Americans. The middle class is shrinking, and you'd be happy with policies which would tend to accelerate that. No es bueno.

What's fair and who is it that make this decision of "fair"? Seems to me that is why we are in the mess we are in at this time.

Fairness is another word for rewarding bad behavior and poor choices by taking from those who didn't behave in the same way.

"Fairness" in housing got us a housing disaster where everyone who owns a home is basically screwed now. Guess that was pretty fair, huh.

They way out of the mess isn't by doing the same things. Folks making bad decisions and poor choices need to share in the pain too, not get rewarded by the tax code under some obscure guise of "fairness".

jkjsooner
4/7/2011, 07:52 AM
If you want to fix the budget vote Republican. The Dumocrats are proving they don't intend to. Hell, they didn't last year.

The republicans haven't really done much over the last 30 years to balance the budget either.

They only want to do it now because it's a win-win for them politically. If it doesn't happen they can blame Obama. If deep cuts are made they can go back to the tea partiers and claim victory and all the consequences of these cuts will be placed on Obama's shoulders.

I agree that we really need to change course and pain is inevitable. On the other hand, I'd like have seen Republicans show the same resolve when a Republican was president. They waited until Obama took office and then all of a sudden it became a crisis. Such hypocrites.

jkjsooner
4/7/2011, 08:02 AM
Helped turn the economy around after the largest attack in US history.

Record minority home ownership

I can't believe you would dare bring up these two since time has really shown both to be based upon an unsustainable bubble that eventually collapsed.


Wanna compare unemployment rates to Obama?

The economy was collapsing long before Obama took office. Remember Lehman Bros? Remember Bear Sterns? Remember Fannie and Freddie? Remember TARP 1?

Greenspan and his fellow believers lassiez faire economics really did us a number here. But, that's okay, go ahead living in your fantasy land where everything was fine prior to January of '09.

Midtowner
4/7/2011, 08:12 AM
What's fair and who is it that make this decision of "fair"? Seems to me that is why we are in the mess we are in at this time.

Fairness is another word for rewarding bad behavior and poor choices by taking from those who didn't behave in the same way.

"Fairness" in housing got us a housing disaster where everyone who owns a home is basically screwed now. Guess that was pretty fair, huh.

They way out of the mess isn't by doing the same things. Folks making bad decisions and poor choices need to share in the pain too, not get rewarded by the tax code under some obscure guise of "fairness".

Ah, so bank executives getting $200MM bonuses while plowing their companies into the ground is rewarding good behavior and good choices and is something that as a society, we should desire more of? Gotcha.

Ideally, we'd have a system which was regulated to the point where it punished big and little guys who tried to game the system. Right now, our system simply exists to reward those who have the power and influence to rig the system in their favor, both rich and poor alike.

Rigging the system either way produces undesirable outcomes for everyone except those gaming the system. Shut that down, and you might start to see my concept of 'fair' emerge.

Saying that the housing collapse was the result of poor people ignores the fact that the folks at the top rigged the system that way so they could make massive profits at the expense of the entire middle class. If you hadn't had the elite at the top of the system knowingly setting up policies which gave mortgages to people who could never pay them back, the collapse would have never happened.

jkjsooner
4/7/2011, 08:38 AM
Ah, so bank executives getting $200MM bonuses while plowing their companies into the ground is rewarding good behavior and good choices and is something that as a society, we should desire more of? Gotcha.

Ideally, we'd have a system which was regulated to the point where it punished big and little guys who tried to game the system. Right now, our system simply exists to reward those who have the power and influence to rig the system in their favor, both rich and poor alike.

Rigging the system either way produces undesirable outcomes for everyone except those gaming the system. Shut that down, and you might start to see my concept of 'fair' emerge.

Saying that the housing collapse was the result of poor people ignores the fact that the folks at the top rigged the system that way so they could make massive profits at the expense of the entire middle class. If you hadn't had the elite at the top of the system knowingly setting up policies which gave mortgages to people who could never pay them back, the collapse would have never happened.


Great post but I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears. Nate, Tuba, RLIMC, etc. have all been told to believe that the community reinvestment act was the only reason that subprime loans existed.

The fact is you are absolutely correct. Companies were making huge profits (short term as it turned out) offering loans that could never be repaid, selling these securities to unsuspecting buyers, insuring these assets, etc. Joe Blow CEO didn't need the government to tell him to do so. He knew his company could make billions a year and he could make tens or hundreds of millions a year in bonuses.

In my eyes, other than a misplaced belief in lassiez-faire economics, we have a couple of major structural flaws in today's corporate world:


Executives have personal financial incentives to seek short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability.
Those who might have a more long-term interest in the health of a company (shareholders, etc.) truly have little say in what goes on within the company. To some extent that is the fault of shareholders but it is a flaw nevertheless as it hurts even those who attempt to have their voices heard.

dwarthog
4/7/2011, 09:18 AM
Ah, so bank executives getting $200MM bonuses while plowing their companies into the ground is rewarding good behavior and good choices and is something that as a society, we should desire more of? Gotcha.

Ideally, we'd have a system which was regulated to the point where it punished big and little guys who tried to game the system. Right now, our system simply exists to reward those who have the power and influence to rig the system in their favor, both rich and poor alike.

Rigging the system either way produces undesirable outcomes for everyone except those gaming the system. Shut that down, and you might start to see my concept of 'fair' emerge.

Saying that the housing collapse was the result of poor people ignores the fact that the folks at the top rigged the system that way so they could make massive profits at the expense of the entire middle class. If you hadn't had the elite at the top of the system knowingly setting up policies which gave mortgages to people who could never pay them back, the collapse would have never happened.

So people are just "victims" of evil corporations then? Excellent!

People have no ability of self determination?

All the corporations have to do is put up flashing neon signs and the helpless flock to the lights mesmerized into making bad decisions?

It is a bit disingenuous to lay the blame at the feet of business when the consumer has the choice to make.

Nothing is rigged in the system, you either have the ability to afford to pay for an item or you don't. Pretending to have an ability to afford more than that via fancy finance options is a trap, and not a very elegant one either.

Simple truth is if folks would have spent a bit more time making a rational decisions, the magnitude of the problem we have now wouldn't exist.

Bankers wouldn't be getting rich and people wouldn't be broke and holding the bag.

Bourbon St Sooner
4/7/2011, 09:19 AM
It's what's being proposed. You want to raise their tax rates and take away their services while not increasing the tax burden on the wealthy... in fact you want to decrease the burden on the wealthy. You may not like to hear it, but yes, in fact, you are proposing to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.

Me? I haven't proposed anything. I think Rep Ryan's proposal is a good start. I think Obama's deficit commission had excellent proposals. I would start by ending our foreign military expedition's and cutting the Pentagon budget in half. Then I would end the Depts of Energy and Education. And you can't seriously address the problem without reforming SS and medicare.

btw, Ryan hasn't proposed a simple drop in the corporate income tax. He proposed tax reform which would end tax breaks that allow GE and Chevron to pay no tax with a subsequent reduction in the top rate. You should quit getting your talking pointsoff msnbc.



Sure. Look at China. Their protectionist measures have been horrible to them.

Yes, let's compare the quality of life of their poor to our poor.

SoCaliSooner
4/7/2011, 09:48 AM
I'm not going to read this whole thing but I've heard it reported that over 50% of the population gets more back from the federal government than they pay in. 50% of the population not paying in isn't all poor and with the top 2% paying most of the tax, the middle class is not paying squat.

Using class warfare, demonizing those who have made money and branding them as evil thieves seems to be the way to go but in reality, the middle class needs to pony up.

jkjsooner
4/7/2011, 09:54 AM
So people are just "victims" of evil corporations then? Excellent!

People have no ability of self determination?

All the corporations have to do is put up flashing neon signs and the helpless flock to the lights mesmerized into making bad decisions?

If you're talking about those who bought houses at inflated prices or bought securities based on poor loans, then I'll agree with your sentiment.

The problem is that the fallout was not limited to those who made poor choices.

dwarthog
4/7/2011, 10:12 AM
If you're talking about those who bought houses at inflated prices or bought securities based on poor loans, then I'll agree with your sentiment.

The problem is that the fallout was not limited to those who made poor choices.

There is plenty of blame to go around on this deal, from overly attractive rates that trapped folks who may have been ill equipped to make good decisions into bad circumstances.

I can't deny that nor will I try

What I am saying is that when the dust all settles on this crap, looking in the mirror at the guy who is supposed to be taking care of your *** is where we need to start at.

Ultimately, we have only ourselves to blame.

Looking to offload blame onto someone else isn't the way out nor is the implementation of some dubious concept of fairness.

Midtowner
4/7/2011, 10:12 AM
So people are just "victims" of evil corporations then? Excellent!

People have no ability of self determination?

Sure, individuals do possess the ability of self-determination, but group behavior is fairly predictable. People with little money tend to be uneducated and tend to make poor decisions anyhow (that's why they're poor).

When the corporations put up those neon signs offering what appears to be free money, it comes as no shock that a lot of folks would jump on that. So many, in fact, that the ripple effects nearly brought down our economy.

We're talking about cause and effect. Seemingly free money offered by the likes of Fannie and Freddie, made available to mortgage brokers to push people into loans they couldn't afford, making a quick profit with no long-term exposure for the ultimate consequences of those loans = cause, millions of people taking that free money = effect.


Nothing is rigged in the system, you either have the ability to afford to pay for an item or you don't. Pretending to have an ability to afford more than that via fancy finance options is a trap, and not a very elegant one either.

Ah yes, like Goldman-Sachs? Like with AIG? Either they stand on their own two feet or they get a bailout. No rigging there.


Simple truth is if folks would have spent a bit more time making a rational decisions, the magnitude of the problem we have now wouldn't exist.

Bankers wouldn't be getting rich and people wouldn't be broke and holding the bag.

Actually, the simple truth is that banks set up ridiculously complex securities to hide the fact that they were worthless, made huge profits off of them, and when they collapsed, many of the billion dollar companies left holding the bag got bailed out while the folks who were snookered into these deals in the first place were left receiving foreclosure notices.

dwarthog
4/7/2011, 10:32 AM
Sure, individuals do possess the ability of self-determination, but group behavior is fairly predictable. People with little money tend to be uneducated and tend to make poor decisions anyhow (that's why they're poor).

When the corporations put up those neon signs offering what appears to be free money, it comes as no shock that a lot of folks would jump on that. So many, in fact, that the ripple effects nearly brought down our economy.

We're talking about cause and effect. Seemingly free money offered by the likes of Fannie and Freddie, made available to mortgage brokers to push people into loans they couldn't afford, making a quick profit with no long-term exposure for the ultimate consequences of those loans = cause, millions of people taking that free money = effect.



Ah yes, like Goldman-Sachs? Like with AIG? Either they stand on their own two feet or they get a bailout. No rigging there.



Actually, the simple truth is that banks set up ridiculously complex securities to hide the fact that they were worthless, made huge profits off of them, and when they collapsed, many of the billion dollar companies left holding the bag got bailed out while the folks who were snookered into these deals in the first place were left receiving foreclosure notices.

I can't discuss the securities end of this with you, I haven't spent anytime studying them and agree they are ridiculously complex. Far more than the average investor should even attempt to play with.

They should have been getting watched by the Fed and they weren't and that is bad on them.

I do stand by my assertion that the way out of the trap for the "uneducated" or those who felt they got trapped into their circumustances, is to get some education on basic finances.

We spend a crap load of money in this country on education and this is the best result we can get for that? It's very disappointing to be honest.

JohnnyMack
4/7/2011, 10:39 AM
So people are just "victims" of evil corporations then? Excellent!

People have no ability of self determination?

All the corporations have to do is put up flashing neon signs and the helpless flock to the lights mesmerized into making bad decisions?

It is a bit disingenuous to lay the blame at the feet of business when the consumer has the choice to make.

Nothing is rigged in the system, you either have the ability to afford to pay for an item or you don't. Pretending to have an ability to afford more than that via fancy finance options is a trap, and not a very elegant one either.

Simple truth is if folks would have spent a bit more time making a rational decisions, the magnitude of the problem we have now wouldn't exist.

Bankers wouldn't be getting rich and people wouldn't be broke and holding the bag.

Yes. Always trust corporations and your government. Neither would ever lie to you.

Baaa.

SoonerProphet
4/7/2011, 10:45 AM
Nothing is rigged in the system

:eek:

Midtowner
4/7/2011, 10:56 AM
I can't discuss the securities end of this with you, I haven't spent anytime studying them and agree they are ridiculously complex. Far more than the average investor should even attempt to play with.

They should have been getting watched by the Fed and they weren't and that is bad on them.

And here's the crazy thing. You'd think we'd all be in favor of some regulation to keep companies from issuing these sorts of securities in the future? Maybe some regulation would be in order? Nope. Of course, Republicans are still beating the deregulation drum. How on Earth could anyone rationally support that?


I do stand by my assertion that the way out of the trap for the "uneducated" or those who felt they got trapped into their circumustances, is to get some education on basic finances.

We spend a crap load of money in this country on education and this is the best result we can get for that? It's very disappointing to be honest.

Well that's great, and from a micro perspective, that's even defensible. But you and I both know that the poor will always be poor and they will never have significant net worth. That's because they tend to not make informed and rational decisions in the marketplace.

From a macro perspective, if there is cheap money to be had, and there are no adequate mechanisms in place to assure that the banks protect their own interests in the event of say...a collapse in real estate prices, then the bad decisions on both sides of that table will have and have had huge consequences for the folks that had the good sense to stay away.

And without regulation, we're headed for another boom and bust, but next time, it'll be worse.

okie52
4/7/2011, 11:36 AM
Tax Year 2008
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$380,354
38.02

Top 5%
$159,619
58.72

Top 10%
$113,799
69.94

Top 25%
$67,280
86.34

Top 50%
$33,048
97.30

Bottom 50%
<$33,048
2.7

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

MamaMia
4/7/2011, 11:37 AM
Flat tax of 15%. The government would simply have to stay within those means. We've managed this country on much less.

okie52
4/7/2011, 12:03 PM
Tax Year 2008
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$380,354
38.02

Top 5%
$159,619
58.72

Top 10%
$113,799
69.94

Top 25%
$67,280
86.34

Top 50%
$33,048
97.30

Bottom 50%
<$33,048
2.7

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Obviously the rich aren't carrying their weight and are trampling on the poor. Heartless baztards.

These people should be ashamed.

Midtowner
4/7/2011, 12:56 PM
Obviously the rich aren't carrying their weight and are trampling on the poor. Heartless baztards.

These people should be ashamed.

Or one might observe that with that sort of income and wealth distribution, apparently the class warfare has been the rich vs. the middle class and the rich are winning big.

okie52
4/7/2011, 01:29 PM
Or one might observe that with that sort of income and wealth distribution, apparently the class warfare has been the rich vs. the middle class and the rich are winning big.

What an original line.

I should be angry with someone that makes more than me. He owes me for having a higher income.

Perhaps we should punish the rich more than we do since obviously they are responsible for the poor and middle classes' earnings. I don't know how they live with themselves.

Bourbon St Sooner
4/7/2011, 01:46 PM
Executives have personal financial incentives to seek short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability.
Those who might have a more long-term interest in the health of a company (shareholders, etc.) truly have little say in what goes on within the company. To some extent that is the fault of shareholders but it is a flaw nevertheless as it hurts even those who attempt to have their voices heard.


The problem is that corporate governance in this country is a joke. It's a complete good ole' boy system where executives sit on each other's boards a vote for bigger pay packages.

What we need are more truly independent board members with real shareholder representation. Another issue is that the folks that would have the real power among shareholders (institutions, mutual funds) seldom take a voice in corporate matters.

GKeeper316
4/7/2011, 02:48 PM
Flat tax of 15%. The government would simply have to stay within those means. We've managed this country on much less.

flat taxes put an unfair burden on the working class.

GKeeper316
4/7/2011, 02:50 PM
What an original line.

I should be angry with someone that makes more than me. He owes me for having a higher income.

Perhaps we should punish the rich more than we do since obviously they are responsible for the poor and middle classes' earnings. I don't know how they live with themselves.

well... they, in fact, are responsible for the poor and middle class' earnings.

okie52
4/7/2011, 03:35 PM
well... they, in fact, are responsible for the poor and middle class' earnings.

Trickle down?

Hmmmm.


Small Business Impact on the Economy
The estimated 29.6 million small businesses in the United States:

Employ just over half of the country’s private sector workforce

Hire 40 percent of high tech workers, such as scientists, engineers and computer workers

Include 52 percent home-based businesses and two percent franchises

Represent 97.3 percent of all the exporters of goods

Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms

Generate a majority of the innovations that come from United States companies

http://www.score.org/small_biz_stats.html

pphilfran
4/7/2011, 03:47 PM
Raising taxes does not address the reason why we have lost some of the middle class....kinda like giving aspirin for a compound fracture...

I am not going to say that I know each and every reason..or even the most likely culprit...but the following are in my lineup...and I damn sure don't know the solution...

Advent of the computer and other associated technologies...

How many nice paying bookkeeping jobs were lost when the pc became prevalent in business?
Barcodes? Think they might have eliminated a few jobs? In the tire business we replaced a hundred sorter associates when barcodes came on line..about 5% of the workforce in plants...overall, tire plants run at 25% less manning today than in 1980...

Wal Mart and other big box retailers...

Good paying middle class business owners were put out of business if they were unable to find their nitch...and the grocery side have decimated many other chains in a tight profit margin business...believe it or not in 1980 a checker stocker at a chain grocery store made about the same as a new hire at Goodyear...today they make half as much...

Illegal workers...
Illegals help create an oversupply of labor causing low pay scales...the lower pay ripples upward into middle class jobs...

Foreign competition...
Prior to 1960 (you might make the case for 1970) there was no competition for US goods...we could set much higher prices, thus profits, that allowed better middle class pay...increased competition caused an inevitable loss of market share...creating slowing growth and causing promised entitlements (ok under the growth business model) to overwhelm the resources, and profits, of those companies that did not act quickly...

Corporate profit growth rate...

Steady increase in earning...you want that 5 or 10% growth (depends on industry) to keep the stock price climbing...50 years ago it was easy to find was to cut spending...today most of the fat has been eliminated and about the only "easy" pickins left to cut in manning or pay...

MamaMia
4/7/2011, 03:53 PM
flat taxes put an unfair burden on the working class.

You're kidding, right?

okie52
4/7/2011, 03:57 PM
Raising taxes does not address the reason why we have lost some of the middle class....kinda like giving aspirin for a compound fracture...

I am not going to say that I know each and every reason..or even the most likely culprit...but the following are in my lineup...and I damn sure don't know the solution...

Advent of the computer and other associated technologies...

How many nice paying bookkeeping jobs were lost when the pc became prevalent in business?
Barcodes? Think they might have eliminated a few jobs? In the tire business we replaced a hundred sorter associates when barcodes came on line..about 5% of the workforce in plants...overall, tire plants run at 25% less manning today than in 1980...

Wal Mart and other big box retailers...

Good paying middle class business owners were put out of business if they were unable to find their nitch...and the grocery side have decimated many other chains in a tight profit margin business...believe it or not in 1980 a checker stocker at a chain grocery store made about the same as a new hire at Goodyear...today they make half as much...

Illegal workers...
Illegals help create an oversupply of labor causing low pay scales...the lower pay ripples upward into middle class jobs...

Foreign competition...
Prior to 1960 (you might make the case for 1970) there was no competition for US goods...we could set much higher prices, thus profits, that allowed better middle class pay...increased competition caused an inevitable loss of market share...creating slowing growth and causing promised entitlements (ok under the growth business model) to overwhelm the resources, and profits, of those companies that did not act quickly...

Corporate profit growth rate...

Steady increase in earning...you want that 5 or 10% growth (depends on industry) to keep the stock price climbing...50 years ago it was easy to find was to cut spending...today most of the fat has been eliminated and about the only "easy" pickins left to cut in manning or pay...

Those areas highlighted are where I'd put the biggest reasons...particularly foreign competition. Hard for labor to compete with $2 a day workers.

Midtowner
4/7/2011, 04:03 PM
I listened to an excellent lecture a few years ago by John Bogle, called "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism."

You can find it here:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/we-the-people-stories/id83213431

It was kind of prophetic for 2005.

Midtowner
4/7/2011, 04:12 PM
You're kidding, right?

Absolutely. To get by in the U.S., you have to have enough to pay rent, maybe a car payment, food, utilities, etc.

Most of the folks who are scrapping by are not able to take a 15% tax hike while living paycheck to paycheck.

Do you think apartments will become 15% cheaper? Do you think food will go down 15%?

15% of someone's income who is earning $1500/month is a bigger cut to their standard of living than it would be to someone earning $15,000 or $150,000 per month.

Midtowner
4/7/2011, 10:19 PM
What an original line.

I should be angry with someone that makes more than me. He owes me for having a higher income.

Perhaps we should punish the rich more than we do since obviously they are responsible for the poor and middle classes' earnings. I don't know how they live with themselves.

Who decides the levels of compensation for the poor and middle class?

Are you starting to see how the deck is stacked?

pphilfran
4/8/2011, 07:23 AM
2010 data

3.5 trillion a year being spent...divide by 310 million in population...$11,290 for every man, woman, or child...working or non working...
Of that $11,290...

$413 to education
$1190 to health
$1458 to Medicare
$2006 to Income Security
$2277 to SS
$348 to Veteran Benefits
$2235 to Defense
$635 to Interest on Debt

$10,564 - Total of above...

We each now have $726 to spend as we please...

pphilfran
4/8/2011, 07:31 AM
About 1/2 of the population has a job and report income...(150 million tax returns)

So each worker supports $22,580 in taxes...$1882 per month...

Think about those numbers...they are staggering....

diverdog
4/8/2011, 08:18 AM
About 1/2 of the population has a job and report income...(150 million tax returns)

So each worker supports $22,580 in taxes...$1882 per month...

Think about those numbers...they are staggering....

What numbers are you using phil?

pphilfran
4/8/2011, 08:21 AM
What numbers are you using phil?

Obama budget and IRS...

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

okie52
4/8/2011, 09:53 AM
Who decides the levels of compensation for the poor and middle class?

Are you starting to see how the deck is stacked?

See post above. Over half the country's private sector are employed by small businesses...often mom and pop shops.

20% of our workforce are public employees.

I don't see the grand conspiracy.

SanJoaquinSooner
4/9/2011, 11:53 AM
Raising taxes does not address the reason why we have lost some of the middle class....kinda like giving aspirin for a compound fracture...

I am not going to say that I know each and every reason..or even the most likely culprit...but the following are in my lineup...and I damn sure don't know the solution...

Advent of the computer and other associated technologies...
How many nice paying bookkeeping jobs were lost when the pc became prevalent in business?
Barcodes? Think they might have eliminated a few jobs? In the tire business we replaced a hundred sorter associates when barcodes came on line..about 5% of the workforce in plants...overall, tire plants run at 25% less manning today than in 1980...

Wal Mart and other big box retailers...

Good paying middle class business owners were put out of business if they were unable to find their nitch...and the grocery side have decimated many other chains in a tight profit margin business...believe it or not in 1980 a checker stocker at a chain grocery store made about the same as a new hire at Goodyear...today they make half as much...

Illegal workers...
Illegals help create an oversupply of labor causing low pay scales...the lower pay ripples upward into middle class jobs...

Foreign competition...
Prior to 1960 (you might make the case for 1970) there was no competition for US goods...we could set much higher prices, thus profits, that allowed better middle class pay...increased competition caused an inevitable loss of market share...creating slowing growth and causing promised entitlements (ok under the growth business model) to overwhelm the resources, and profits, of those companies that did not act quickly...

Corporate profit growth rate...

Steady increase in earning...you want that 5 or 10% growth (depends on industry) to keep the stock price climbing...50 years ago it was easy to find was to cut spending...today most of the fat has been eliminated and about the only "easy" pickins left to cut in manning or pay...

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/manufacturing-for-web-PNG26.png

Phil. you're right on target with the technology issue. Since 1975, manufacturing output has more than doubled, while employment in the sector has decreased by 31%. It has nothing to do with illegal workers and has everything to do with technological efficiency.

New immigrants, by and large, don't compete with native born middle class workers for jobs. They compete at the low and high end, e.g., dishwasher or hotel maid or physics professor. Agriculture, maintenance, hotel & restaurant, seasonal tourist workers, food prep, roofers.

And the unemployment rate of nearly 9 percent has nothing to do with immigration. The rate was below 5 percent four years ago when there were 1 million more illegal immigrants in the U.S. than today. There is an inverse relationship between the number of illegally present workers and the unemployment rate. Immigrants can return home when recessions hit but native born workers are by-and-large stuck here. If there were reformed worker visa laws so they could come legally, they would go home in greater numbers, knowing they could easily return when economic growth returned. As it is presently with tight borders, they tend to hunker down and ride it out.

Illegal immigrants depress wages about 1 to 2% for high school dropouts, while boosting the pay and standard of living for the 90% who are high school graduates making up the middle and upper class. By helping create an adequate supply of labor in normal economic times, they tend to boost the returns on capital, stimulating more investment elsewhere in the economy.

In 1960, only 50% of the adult workforce had high school diplomas. Today, close to 90% are high school grads. The pool of native born workers for lower end jobs has been shrinking steadily for decades.

And on the point about foreign competition, it was a mistake to
protect inefficient laggard industries like we did in the 1970s and before. Paying a worker $20/hour when someone who is just as efficient at $2/hour is in effect an $18/hour welfare payment. Middle class consumers don't want to pay $20 for a broom when one just as good costs $10. And who wants to pay $7000 for a big screen TV? The middle class consumer can take the savings and spend it elsewhere or maybe even save it. In the aggregate, having foreigners make brooms may cost a dozen U.S. over-paid workers they fat subsidized paycheck, but it will save tens of thousands of broom buyers money that can be used other ways. Besides, the inefficient U.S. broommakers won't be able to compete in the world market where 92% of the population and potential consumers live.

The U.S. is much better suited, with our high standard of living, to export high-end products and services. And actually, as measured by foreign dollars taken in, tourism is our biggest export - so y'all be careful with that ill-defined "secure the borders" nonsense. A million folks enter the U.S. everyday through our 325 ports of legal entry.




And mom and pop need to find a niche market, otherwise it's welfare to support inefficient businesses through legally inhibiting more efficient ones.

.

Midtowner
4/9/2011, 12:17 PM
The above theory presupposes, of course, that a middle class still exists. Someone has to be paying those middle class wages for those middle class folks to save all that money.

pphilfran
4/9/2011, 02:03 PM
The above theory presupposes, of course, that a middle class still exists. Someone has to be paying those middle class wages for those middle class folks to save all that money.

IRS IGA data...2007 was the latest data available when I made the chart...2008 data is now available...data is not inflation adjusted

1. Overall an additional 28.3 million returns
2. People making below 50k got screwed..same number of returns in these lowest two AGI groups...
3. An additional 25 million returns showing an AGI between 50k and 200k...a 128% increase in number of returns...Total AGI for the group increased by 165%
4.An additional 3 million returns with an AGI between 200k and a mill...a 347% increase in the number of returns...they also sucked in their share of the total AGI...that 347% increase in returns had a 349% increase in total AGI...
5. A million or more increased by 490%...the total AGI for the group increased 721%, more than this groups fair share...

It looks to me that the middle class has not really taken a major hit (at least through 2007...those making less than 50k a year are the ones that are getting the short end of the stick...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/agichange.jpg

pphilfran
4/9/2011, 02:10 PM
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/manufacturing-for-web-PNG26.png

Phil. you're right on target with the technology issue. Since 1975, manufacturing output has more than doubled, while employment in the sector has decreased by 31%. It has nothing to do with illegal workers and has everything to do with technological efficiency.

New immigrants, by and large, don't compete with native born middle class workers for jobs. They compete at the low and high end, e.g., dishwasher or hotel maid or physics professor. Agriculture, maintenance, hotel & restaurant, seasonal tourist workers, food prep, roofers.

And the unemployment rate of nearly 9 percent has nothing to do with immigration. The rate was below 5 percent four years ago when there were 1 million more illegal immigrants in the U.S. than today. There is an inverse relationship between the number of illegally present workers and the unemployment rate. Immigrants can return home when recessions hit but native born workers are by-and-large stuck here. If there were reformed worker visa laws so they could come legally, they would go home in greater numbers, knowing they could easily return when economic growth returned. As it is presently with tight borders, they tend to hunker down and ride it out.

Illegal immigrants depress wages about 1 to 2% for high school dropouts, while boosting the pay and standard of living for the 90% who are high school graduates making up the middle and upper class. By helping create an adequate supply of labor in normal economic times, they tend to boost the returns on capital, stimulating more investment elsewhere in the economy.

In 1960, only 50% of the adult workforce had high school diplomas. Today, close to 90% are high school grads. The pool of native born workers for lower end jobs has been shrinking steadily for decades.

And on the point about foreign competition, it was a mistake to
protect inefficient laggard industries like we did in the 1970s and before. Paying a worker $20/hour when someone who is just as efficient at $2/hour is in effect an $18/hour welfare payment. Middle class consumers don't want to pay $20 for a broom when one just as good costs $10. And who wants to pay $7000 for a big screen TV? The middle class consumer can take the savings and spend it elsewhere or maybe even save it. In the aggregate, having foreigners make brooms may cost a dozen U.S. over-paid workers they fat subsidized paycheck, but it will save tens of thousands of broom buyers money that can be used other ways. Besides, the inefficient U.S. broommakers won't be able to compete in the world market where 92% of the population and potential consumers live.

The U.S. is much better suited, with our high standard of living, to export high-end products and services. And actually, as measured by foreign dollars taken in, tourism is our biggest export - so y'all be careful with that ill-defined "secure the borders" nonsense. A million folks enter the U.S. everyday through our 325 ports of legal entry.




And mom and pop need to find a niche market, otherwise it's welfare to support inefficient businesses through legally inhibiting more efficient ones.

.

You make good points but I still say illegals hurt pay scale into the lower middle class...that lower middle class has been taking a hit for decades, not just the last few years...

If the illegals were not in the workforce those jobs would be difficult to fill...few would want them...the employers would need to raise their wage level to fill the slots...they start paying more and Wally World could lose some help (there are better examples than Wally World, you pick em)...and they also would need to raise pay scale...

I didn't say it was the major impact...but I am positive that illegals do cause some wage erosion in those making 30 or 40k a year....

okie52
4/9/2011, 04:09 PM
The pool for lower end jobs has been shrinking for decades because we have been living with illegal immigration problems since Carter.

Having 12,000,000 plus illegals has a little more impact than 1-2% since they will work for the lowest possible wage. Americans will work for a decent wage particularly when unemployemnt requires they do so. And the wages will also rise to meet the demands of a native labor force rather one that is inundated with low wage illegals. Of course the punishment to our infrastructure by illegals is another matter altogether.

Good grief....are some people really having a problem understanding the difference between tourism and illegal immigration?

VeeJay
4/9/2011, 07:50 PM
Spend a lot less for two hundred, Alex.

Sooner5030
4/9/2011, 08:37 PM
Absolutely. To get by in the U.S., you have to have enough to pay rent, maybe a car payment, food, utilities, etc.

Most of the folks who are scrapping by are not able to take a 15% tax hike while living paycheck to paycheck.

Do you think apartments will become 15% cheaper? Do you think food will go down 15%?

15% of someone's income who is earning $1500/month is a bigger cut to their standard of living than it would be to someone earning $15,000 or $150,000 per month.

We haven't even started to see multi-generational housing as much as we did in previous generations. So yeah.....living expenses can still get 15% cheaper. Also, once they become one of the 44 million on food stamps they get plenty of money for food. buy a wok.....learn to cook....cut the cable.....cut the cell phone....move in with parents......child care for free....etc.etc.

StoopTroup
4/9/2011, 08:40 PM
We haven't even started to see multi-generational housing as much as we did in previous generations. So yeah.....living expenses can still get 15% cheaper. Also, once they become one of the 44 million on food stamps they get plenty of money for food. buy a wok.....learn to cook....cut the cable.....cut the cell phone....move in with parents......child care for free....etc.etc.

multi-generational housing?

What's that?

Sooner5030
4/9/2011, 08:42 PM
multi-generational housing?

What's that?

where you, your parents and kids shared land and also a house.

StoopTroup
4/9/2011, 08:52 PM
where you, your parents and kids shared land and also a house.

It's my understanding that if your parent leaves you a house you'll face a 50% inheritance tax on it now.

I'm still reading up on it all....but in order for the poor and middle class to not be screwed they are going to need to hire a financial accountant to save anything and if there is even any kind of squabble between siblings.....you might as well just let the government have it.

Initially I see there is a million dollar exclusion but **** shouldn't be this complicated to pass your Parents and Grand Parents stuff down. If they had millions....then that's different I suppose.....but IMO...it shouldn't be.

The damn Government taxes the dead now.

It's not enough that the living are all suffering and the older parents are trying to be thrifty as they leave this world....but to see them do that and then have it all taken after Death(?)....I would have rather they take a cruise or put it on RED on the roulette Table.

Sooner5030
4/9/2011, 09:02 PM
deed the assets over prior to death.....even if you forgot in OK you will be fine on the non-cash assets as long as they aren't worth a shiatload.

StoopTroup
4/9/2011, 09:21 PM
deed the assets over prior to death.....even if you forgot in OK you will be fine on the non-cash assets as long as they aren't worth a shiatload.

How much is a ****load?

SanJoaquinSooner
4/9/2011, 09:39 PM
How much is a ****load?

I believe for 2011 the estate tax exemption is 5 million.

Midtowner
4/9/2011, 09:54 PM
deed the assets over prior to death.....even if you forgot in OK you will be fine on the non-cash assets as long as they aren't worth a shiatload.

Gift tax?

StoopTroup
4/9/2011, 10:01 PM
I believe for 2011 the estate tax exemption is 5 million.

The table I saw was a million and then you have to consider how many are being gifted and how that affects it all.

It's great to see numbers thrown around that make folks feel better......but we as Americans have little trust in our Government anymore.

Sooner5030
4/9/2011, 10:26 PM
Gift tax?

Only if the amount they "sold" it to you for was less than $20k of the market value. Some quitclaim deeds can trigger a property reassessment.

anyway.....in OK you're better off having a will and leaving it after death as it will likely be under the amount that can be excluded......we are discussing the type of folks who choose to live together to get by.

SanJoaquinSooner
4/9/2011, 11:54 PM
The table I saw was a million and then you have to consider how many are being gifted and how that affects it all.

It's great to see numbers thrown around that make folks feel better......but we as Americans have little trust in our Government anymore.


Obama agreed to extend the boosh tax cuts and included the 5 mil exemption.

Be sure you die before the end of 2012, however.

Estate limit increase and lower taxes – Existing thresholds will be raised to $5 million for an individual or $10 million for a couple for both estate and gift-tax levies, with a top tax rate of 35%. These new provisions are only for 2 years and will expire at the end of 2012, meaning a lot of revised estate planning for families. Taxpayers who have already used some of their lifetime exclusion under the old rules ($1 million) will be eligible for the higher exemption limit. The annual gift limits will remain at $13,000, or $26,000 for a couple, a year for each beneficiary; this is in addition to the lifetime limits.

Turd_Ferguson
4/10/2011, 12:22 AM
I would have rather they take a cruise or put it on RED on the roulette Table.ALWAYS bet on RED...