Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
Author Message
gobluebigjon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,003
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: basketball?
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-22-2015 05:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 05:09 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 04:27 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 04:07 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 03:43 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  07-coffee3 You may want to check on that again.

Or better, leave well enough alone if you don't know what you're talking about.

The half trillion, in the form of the "deficit", has been added to our accumulated debt. Fact.

The article that had been posted was talking about the deficit. The thread title is talking about the deficit, yet you continue to talk about the debt. The 2 are not one and the same.
The deficit has in fact decreased, the debt has increased.

Wow. Just wow.

I'm not entirely sure as I haven't polled all those that have contributed to this thread, correctly or woefully incorrectly, but if I were a betting man, which I'm not, I'd bet a sizable sum that most, clearly not all 03-lmfao, have managed to realize the thread title is in error and have moved forward with the spirit of the thread anyway.

You apparently have not, which is fine, it's kind of cute actually.

I guess you disregarded post #35 where I said the Op should change the thread title. I am well aware of the mistake there.
Not my fault you responded to an article saying the deficit was lowered with a comment about how it increased by half a trillion, regardless of the fact that fit was screwing with you guys. Nor is it my fault you mentioned something about Obama spewing his BS, when he didn't mention the debt, but did mention the deficit. It is not BS the the deficit has gone down, it would be BS if he were talking about the debt.


Perhaps not, but it is your fault that you apparently can't read. I never mentioned that article.

I was responding to Fitty's nonsense in his answer TO the thread title. "He did. How he lowered it." He then responded with his semi-relevant article presumably trying to bolster his case that zerO did indeed mention the DEBT, and that it was coming down.

"What do you think he meant?" He pretty clearly wasn't asking what the article author meant, but what ES meant. I responded, apparently correctly, that it was meant to confuse the feeble minded, obfuscate the issue and as someone else correctly posited have the mind numbed audience think we are bringing down the debt.

Hence " Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?" "He did. How he lowered it"

We gettin' this camera guy? If not I can try again to spell it out more clearly. Perhaps using crayons next time. 05-stirthepot

Do you often respond to an issue with something unrelated? Just because you couldn't figure out fit was screwing with you quickly enough doesn't mean I can't read, it just means you are a little slow on the uptake.
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2015 06:34 PM by gobluebigjon.)
01-22-2015 06:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMUDunk Offline
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
*

Posts: 29,501
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1721
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
Post: #62
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-22-2015 06:29 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 05:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 05:09 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 04:27 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 04:07 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  The article that had been posted was talking about the deficit. The thread title is talking about the deficit, yet you continue to talk about the debt. The 2 are not one and the same.
The deficit has in fact decreased, the debt has increased.

Wow. Just wow.

I'm not entirely sure as I haven't polled all those that have contributed to this thread, correctly or woefully incorrectly, but if I were a betting man, which I'm not, I'd bet a sizable sum that most, clearly not all 03-lmfao, have managed to realize the thread title is in error and have moved forward with the spirit of the thread anyway.

You apparently have not, which is fine, it's kind of cute actually.

I guess you disregarded post #35 where I said the Op should change the thread title. I am well aware of the mistake there.
Not my fault you responded to an article saying the deficit was lowered with a comment about how it increased by half a trillion, regardless of the fact that fit was screwing with you guys. Nor is it my fault you mentioned something about Obama spewing his BS, when he didn't mention the debt, but did mention the deficit. It is not BS the the deficit has gone down, it would be BS if he were talking about the debt.


Perhaps not, but it is your fault that you apparently can't read. I never mentioned that article.

I was responding to Fitty's nonsense in his answer TO the thread title. "He did. How he lowered it." He then responded with his semi-relevant article presumably trying to bolster his case that zerO did indeed mention the DEBT, and that it was coming down.

"What do you think he meant?" He pretty clearly wasn't asking what the article author meant, but what ES meant. I responded, apparently correctly, that it was meant to confuse the feeble minded, obfuscate the issue and as someone else correctly posited have the mind numbed audience think we are bringing down the debt.

Hence " Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?" "He did. How he lowered it"

We gettin' this camera guy? If not I can try again to spell it out more clearly. Perhaps using crayons next time. 05-stirthepot

Do you often respond to an issue with something unrelated? Just because you couldn't figure out fit was screwing with you quickly enough doesn't mean I can't read, it just means you are a little slow on the uptake.

Nah, again you miss the mark. By a wide margin.

The first response I had to fit's silliness was that it was so stupid it hurt. You should've started reading there apparently.

But enough. Fair enough. Crayons next time. crayons.
01-22-2015 07:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sparkomemphis Offline
member of UofM Atl alumni club.
*

Posts: 4,668
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Oakland, TN

NCAAbbs LUGSkunkworksDonatorsDonators
Post: #63
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-22-2015 02:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Creb, you're missing one key detail though. Increasing taxes (generating more revenue) also decreases the deficit. Most would say he has worked way to hard at this. 03-wink


Increasing Taxes (rate) dose not equal Increase revenue.

a rate of 100% would be $0 in revenue!
if lowering the tax rate increase the amount taxed the revenue could go up.

would you rather have 15% of $2,000,000 ($300,000) or
25% of $1,000,000 ( $250,000) ??
01-22-2015 08:03 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
G-Man Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,369
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 481
I Root For: Truth & Justice
Location: Cyberspace
Post: #64
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
Obama's greatest achievement by far, so far, has been his ability to keep meteors from destroying the earth. Without his leadership, undoubtedly we'd have been destroyed as a WORLD (no less just a nation). Anyone who wants to say otherwise, just look at he evidence that proves it. HAVE we been wiped out by asteroids while he was in office? Hmmm?????

I rest my case.
01-22-2015 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gobluebigjon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,003
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: basketball?
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-22-2015 07:28 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 06:29 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 05:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 05:09 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 04:27 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Wow. Just wow.

I'm not entirely sure as I haven't polled all those that have contributed to this thread, correctly or woefully incorrectly, but if I were a betting man, which I'm not, I'd bet a sizable sum that most, clearly not all 03-lmfao, have managed to realize the thread title is in error and have moved forward with the spirit of the thread anyway.

You apparently have not, which is fine, it's kind of cute actually.

I guess you disregarded post #35 where I said the Op should change the thread title. I am well aware of the mistake there.
Not my fault you responded to an article saying the deficit was lowered with a comment about how it increased by half a trillion, regardless of the fact that fit was screwing with you guys. Nor is it my fault you mentioned something about Obama spewing his BS, when he didn't mention the debt, but did mention the deficit. It is not BS the the deficit has gone down, it would be BS if he were talking about the debt.


Perhaps not, but it is your fault that you apparently can't read. I never mentioned that article.

I was responding to Fitty's nonsense in his answer TO the thread title. "He did. How he lowered it." He then responded with his semi-relevant article presumably trying to bolster his case that zerO did indeed mention the DEBT, and that it was coming down.

"What do you think he meant?" He pretty clearly wasn't asking what the article author meant, but what ES meant. I responded, apparently correctly, that it was meant to confuse the feeble minded, obfuscate the issue and as someone else correctly posited have the mind numbed audience think we are bringing down the debt.

Hence " Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?" "He did. How he lowered it"

We gettin' this camera guy? If not I can try again to spell it out more clearly. Perhaps using crayons next time. 05-stirthepot

Do you often respond to an issue with something unrelated? Just because you couldn't figure out fit was screwing with you quickly enough doesn't mean I can't read, it just means you are a little slow on the uptake.

Nah, again you miss the mark. By a wide margin.

The first response I had to fit's silliness was that it was so stupid it hurt. You should've started reading there apparently.

But enough. Fair enough. Crayons next time. crayons.

Yep and had you been talking about the debt you would have given the trillion amount rather than half trillion. One was the deficit one was the debt added. All of the back pedaling you want to do doesn't change anything. Maybe you were trying to make it look better for Obama than it really is? Somehow I doubt that is the case.
01-22-2015 08:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #66
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-22-2015 08:03 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 02:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Creb, you're missing one key detail though. Increasing taxes (generating more revenue) also decreases the deficit. Most would say he has worked way to hard at this. 03-wink


Increasing Taxes (rate) dose not equal Increase revenue.

a rate of 100% would be $0 in revenue!
if lowering the tax rate increase the amount taxed the revenue could go up.

would you rather have 15% of $2,000,000 ($300,000) or
25% of $1,000,000 ( $250,000) ??

The most glaring historical evidence is when Kennedy reduced the rate for the top bracket. It spurred the economy and brought in more cash than before.
01-22-2015 10:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #67
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
Obama has yet to get the annual budget deficit down to the largest deficit that Bush signed off on.
01-23-2015 07:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
VA49er Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,000
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation: 952
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-23-2015 07:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Obama has yet to get the annual budget deficit down to the largest deficit that Bush signed off on.

I agree, and all this is just semantics. Even a lower deficit yields a higher national debt.
01-23-2015 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #69
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-23-2015 07:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Obama has yet to get the annual budget deficit down to the largest deficit that Bush signed off on.

Semantics. Conventional wisdom almost always places the first year's budget on the predecessor, and FY2009 was $1.413 trillion. Even if you don't give the whole year to Bush, you certainly have to give at least the majority of it to him. There was little Obama could have done to alter the FY2009 deficit.
01-23-2015 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
Owl,

You lose a little credibility there. The whole 2008 meltdown? Come on. Try to be an honest broker here.
01-23-2015 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #71
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-22-2015 10:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 08:03 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 02:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Creb, you're missing one key detail though. Increasing taxes (generating more revenue) also decreases the deficit. Most would say he has worked way to hard at this. 03-wink


Increasing Taxes (rate) dose not equal Increase revenue.

a rate of 100% would be $0 in revenue!
if lowering the tax rate increase the amount taxed the revenue could go up.

would you rather have 15% of $2,000,000 ($300,000) or
25% of $1,000,000 ( $250,000) ??

The most glaring historical evidence is when Kennedy reduced the rate for the top bracket. It spurred the economy and brought in more cash than before.

That's a huge stretch to call that evidence. Kennedy got the top rate lowered from 91% to 70%. That's a huge cut. Today the top rate is only 39.6%. Not to mention the other economic factors that were completely different in the mid 60's.
01-23-2015 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #72
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-23-2015 11:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 07:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Obama has yet to get the annual budget deficit down to the largest deficit that Bush signed off on.
Semantics. Conventional wisdom almost always places the first year's budget on the predecessor, and FY2009 was $1.413 trillion. Even if you don't give the whole year to Bush, you certainly have to give at least the majority of it to him. There was little Obama could have done to alter the FY2009 deficit.

Yes, but 2009 is the year for which that conventional wisdom would be wrong, and you know that full well. Also let's be honest. Contrary to your assertion, Obama could do quite a bit to alter the federal budget. We know this because he DID do quite a bit, specifically adding $400+ billion in expenditures that Bush would not approve (which is why the budget didn't get passed and signed until Obama was in office). Because the 2009 budget was approved in this unconventional manner, conventional wisdom does not apply.

Let's look at what actually happened. Bush proposed a budget with a $400 billion deficit. That budget projected revenues at $2.7 trillion, but they came in $600 billion short, at $2.1 trillion. So if we blame Bush (and not Obama and not the democrat-controlled congresses that both of them had) for the entirety of the recession, we could calculate that $1 trillion of the 2009 deficit belongs to Bush and $400 billion to Obama.

Based upon that reckoning, Obama could claim that in FY 2014 that he had (barely) cut the deficit in half.

But that is misleading on several accounts:

1. It doesn't consider the role of congress, which shares at least equally in the process. Lets look at republican versus democrat controlled congresses. A republican controlled congress from 2003-2006 reduced the deficit (2004-2007) from $412 billion to $160 billion. A democrat controlled congress from 2007-2010 increased the deficit from $160 billion to $1.3 trillion (2011). A split congress from 2011-2014 reduced the deficit to $483 billion (2014 actual, with 2015 yet to come). What baffles me is why republicans don't make more political use of this, as well as similar splits for growth and employment.
2. If you look at the outer projections, 2014 looks more like a one-off than a trend. CBO projections have the deficit back over 3/4 of a trillion by the end of the decade.
3. None of this considers the growth in the debt. It will continue to grow as long as there is a deficit of any amount. And with that we should keep in mind that if interest rates start to climb then those deficit projections blow up in a hurry.

(01-23-2015 11:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl,
You lose a little credibility there. The whole 2008 meltdown? Come on. Try to be an honest broker here.

Yes, I picked my words very carefully. But still true. And more honest than attributing the whole $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 to Bush the way you lefties do. Way more honest than that.
01-23-2015 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #73
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-23-2015 11:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's a huge stretch to call that evidence. Kennedy got the top rate lowered from 91% to 70%. That's a huge cut. Today the top rate is only 39.6%. Not to mention the other economic factors that were completely different in the mid 60's.

Among those other economic factors that were very different in the mid 60s were the tax rates everywhere else in the world. And contemporaneous comparisons with other countries are far more relevant than comparisons between years, for one simple reason. I can make a decision today whether to build my new plant in, say, Pennsylvania or Poland. I can't decide today whether to build that plant in 2015 or 1965. So it's the difference between countries that influence decisions, not the difference between years.

So what were the differences between countries then and now. When we were at 91%, virtually every country (except a few tax havens) were at the same level or higher, both corporate and individual. So when JFK proposed lowering the rates, he was opening a wide and favorable gap between us and the world. That's why it had a positive effect.

To keep up, the rest of the developed world discovered the consumption tax (VAT/GST) which allowed them to lower income tax rates, and to flatten their rate structures. Today the rest of OECD get 40% of their national government revenues from consumption taxes. As a result, by the time Reagan took office, we were back at the upper end of the developed world for both corporate and individual tax rates. Reagan lowered our rates in two steps, basically to about world levels in 2001 and then (with Bill Bradley) substantially below world levels in 1986 (with sufficient removal of loopholes that cutting the rates in half still produced an increase in revenues).

Since then rates have continued to decline in other countries (primarily because of steadily greater reliance on consumption taxes) while ours have remained pretty much in the same range. Today we have the highest top corporate tax bracket in the world (39.1% including average state taxes) and our top individual rate (46.3%, again including average state taxes) is above the OECD average. To give some perspective, when Bill Clinton got through RAISING tax rates, we were among the LOWEST of all developed countries, but when George W. Bush got through LOWERING taxes, we were among the HIGHEST. Think seriously about that, long enough for it to sink in.

That's why both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin proposed doing another JFKesque or Reaganesque cut in both our top corporate and top individual tax rates (perhaps more Reaganesque, or maybe more properly Bradleyesque, in that elimination of significant deductions and loopholes would also occur) as a way to INCREASE tax revenues.

Let's be clear about something. Lowering tax rates does not automatically increase revenues as some republicans seem to think. It can under either of two conditions:
1) Existing tax rates are high enough that they discourage significant economic activity that would generate additional revenues if it took place. With our higher than the rest of the world, and people moving investment overseas to take advantage of lower rates there, there is some potential for this to occur today. This probably happened with the JFK/LBJ 1960s cut and also the Reagan 1986 cuts. This is basically the Laffer curve effect.
2) If the trade-off is lower rates for elimination of deductions/loopholes, then you can clearly get a reprise of the 1986 effect. That is what Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin were counting on.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2015 01:33 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
01-23-2015 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BleedsHuskieRed Offline
All American
*

Posts: 10,067
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 78
I Root For: NIU
Location: Colorado Springs

Donators
Post: #74
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
Why anyone without an economics degree tries to engage Owl on these things is astounding.
01-23-2015 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #75
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
One other point. The leftists like to point to our AVERAGE tax rates, which are lower than the statutory rates, in order to argue that our rates aren't really that high. But here's the problem with that argument. Average rates are lower than statutory rates because corporations and "wealthy" people find ways to have their incomes taxed at lower levels. Some of those ways take advantage of domestic provisions (such as capital gains) wile the others involve moving operations overseas to lower tax jurisdictions. If you want to see the impact on corporations, go to the SEC's EDGAR website and browse your favorite publicly-traded multinational's latest 10-K. In the financial statements you will find an Income Tax footnote (it's a required disclosure) and part of that footnote (also required) will be a reconciliation from the statutory rate to the effective rate that they actually paid. Note how much of the difference is attributable to tax savings from operating overseas. Then ponder what would be the effect on our economy if the operations generating those tax savings had occurred here rather than there. Should be an eye-opener.

Bottom line: The statutory rates drive business decisions. The effective rates reflect the results of those decisions. If you want to change those decisions, you have to change the statutory rates. Also, you can't change the effective rates by legislation. That's the result of the decisions made after you define the options with the tax code.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2015 01:26 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
01-23-2015 01:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #76
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-23-2015 12:56 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Why anyone without an economics degree tries to engage Owl on these things is astounding.

[Image: cool-story-bro-tell-it-again-wallpaper.jpg]
01-23-2015 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMUDunk Offline
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
*

Posts: 29,501
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1721
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
Post: #77
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-23-2015 12:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 11:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's a huge stretch to call that evidence. Kennedy got the top rate lowered from 91% to 70%. That's a huge cut. Today the top rate is only 39.6%. Not to mention the other economic factors that were completely different in the mid 60's.

Among those other economic factors that were very different in the mid 60s were the tax rates everywhere else in the world. And contemporaneous comparisons with other countries are far more relevant than comparisons between years, for one simple reason. I can make a decision today whether to build my new plant in, say, Pennsylvania or Poland. I can't decide today whether to build that plant in 2015 or 1965. So it's the difference between countries that influence decisions, not the difference between years.

So what were the differences between countries then and now. When we were at 91%, virtually every country (except a few tax havens) were at the same level or higher, both corporate and individual. So when JFK proposed lowering the rates, he was opening a wide and favorable gap between us and the world. That's why it had a positive effect.

To keep up, the rest of the developed world discovered the consumption tax (VAT/GST) which allowed them to lower income tax rates, and to flatten their rate structures. Today the rest of OECD get 40% of their national government revenues from consumption taxes. As a result, by the time Reagan took office, we were back at the upper end of the developed world for both corporate and individual tax rates. Reagan lowered our rates in two steps, basically to about world levels in 2001 and then (with Bill Bradley) substantially below world levels in 1986 (with sufficient removal of loopholes that cutting the rates in half still produced an increase in revenues).

Since then rates have continued to decline in other countries (primarily because of steadily greater reliance on consumption taxes) while ours have remained pretty much in the same range. Today we have the highest top corporate tax bracket in the world (39.1% including average state taxes) and our top individual rate (46.3%, again including average state taxes) is above the OECD average. To give some perspective, when Bill Clinton got through RAISING tax rates, we were among the LOWEST of all developed countries, but when George W. Bush got through LOWERING taxes, we were among the HIGHEST. Think seriously about that, long enough for it to sink in.

That's why both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin proposed doing another JFKesque or Reaganesque cut in both our top corporate and top individual tax rates (perhaps more Reaganesque, or maybe more properly Bradleyesque, in that elimination of significant deductions and loopholes would also occur) as a way to INCREASE tax revenues.

Let's be clear about something. Lowering tax rates does not automatically increase revenues as some republicans seem to think. It can under either of two conditions:
1) Existing tax rates are high enough that they discourage significant economic activity that would generate additional revenues if it took place. With our higher than the rest of the world, and people moving investment overseas to take advantage of lower rates there, there is some potential for this to occur today. This probably happened with the JFK/LBJ 1960s cut and also the Reagan 1986 cuts. This is basically the Laffer curve effect.
2) If the trade-off is lower rates for elimination of deductions/loopholes, then you can clearly get a reprise of the 1986 effect. That is what Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin were counting on.

The bolded may be addressing a "3rd" condition that I was going to mention, but I'm not sure if you are saying the significant economic activity is only about bringing home the overseas investing stuff or not.

If not then N/M, but a 3rd condition is simply the ability of corporations and individuals to either expand operations, or start up new ones with money NOT going to DC in the form of taxes. If that money "stays home" it will be put to use somehow. Lower the rates, allow for a better return on investment and watch the economy actually grow, for a change.

The more and more that we continue to raise taxes and discourage people or corporations to expand or take risk, we get less and less economic activity. Less activity, less revenue.

I'm convinced this played a large part in this worst ever "recovery" we're in. The worst part about it is we are about due for another economic slowdown and we haven't even fully gotten out of the funk from the last one. We've had no period of rapid expansion and creation of good, well paying jobs as we have in the past.

As I've said before, most of these current "millenials" don't even know what a really good, booming economy looks like. It's a shame.
01-23-2015 06:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #78
RE: Why didn't Obama mention the 18 trillion dollar deficit last night?
(01-23-2015 06:02 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  The bolded may be addressing a "3rd" condition that I was going to mention, but I'm not sure if you are saying the significant economic activity is only about bringing home the overseas investing stuff or not.
If not then N/M, but a 3rd condition is simply the ability of corporations and individuals to either expand operations, or start up new ones with money NOT going to DC in the form of taxes. If that money "stays home" it will be put to use somehow. Lower the rates, allow for a better return on investment and watch the economy actually grow, for a change.
The more and more that we continue to raise taxes and discourage people or corporations to expand or take risk, we get less and less economic activity. Less activity, less revenue.
I'm convinced this played a large part in this worst ever "recovery" we're in. The worst part about it is we are about due for another economic slowdown and we haven't even fully gotten out of the funk from the last one. We've had no period of rapid expansion and creation of good, well paying jobs as we have in the past.
As I've said before, most of these current "millenials" don't even know what a really good, booming economy looks like. It's a shame.

Good point. I was referring mostly to bringing overseas stuff back home, which is why I went through the US versus elsewhere comparisons.

There used to be an argument that people would simply refrain from economic activity at a certain level. When taxes took 91% at the margin, that was a very reasonable argument, particularly if any risk was involved in the activity. Now that rates are in the 25-40% range, that's not as strong an argument. I wish republicans would quit even trying to make it, because it's not really relevant any more and it detracts from and confuses the point they should be making.

I'll engage in economic activity and pay 40% taxes if I have no alternative. But other than retail/service activities that must locate close to customers, I have an alternative based on two big changes from the 50s and 60s. One, income tax rates elsewhere are substantially below ours, and two, things like the Internet and long-range wide-bodied jets have made the world much smaller. And obviously, as you note, higher tax rates here are a barrier to repatriating overseas profits.

The experience that really opened my eyes came in 1984. We were at the height of Reaganomics, France had a socialist government, and I was tasked with a recommendation on a plant siting decision between Wichita, Kansas, and Normandy. What surprised me was that the French tax situation was so much more favorable that it almost trumped all other considerations.
01-23-2015 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.