[mike777]

With the Bush tax cuts set to disappear in 2010 the next election will give people a clear choice what they prefer on taxes.

The Democrats propose the largest tax increase in history.
The Republicans propose the largest tax cut in history.

Paul Krugman, economist at Princeton, said on the Charlie Rose tv show, we could increase the marginial tax rate up to around 80% for the highest tax brackets without economic problems. He also recommends getting rid of the very low capital gain tax all together and tax capital gains as ordinary income.

I do not have the exact numbers but I am guessing close to 50% of all Americans, including children and the retired do not pay any income taxes.

It will be interesting if more than 50% of those who show up to vote do not pay any income taxes.

[PassedOut]

I pay heavy taxes and I love tax cuts so long as the budget is balanced.

One of Bush's campaign promises in 2000 was to restore fiscal irresponsibility in Washington. That's why he was completely unacceptable to me then, as he was to every honest conservative. Sadly, that was one of the few promises he actually kept after the Supreme Court put him into the White House.

So long as tax cuts are not matched by spending cuts, the government is stealing from our children and grandchildren. Bush was handed a government with a budget surplus and, as Commander-in-Thief, he blew the whole amount in six months.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Jan 17 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

I pay heavy taxes and I love tax cuts so long as the budget is balanced.

One of Bush's campaign promises in 2000 was to restore fiscal irresponsibility in Washington. That's why he was completely unacceptable to me then, as he was to every honest conservative. Sadly, that was one of the few promises he actually kept after the Supreme Court put him into the White House.

So long as tax cuts are not matched by spending cuts, the government is stealing from our children and grandchildren. Bush was handed a government with a budget surplus and, as Commander-in-Thief, he blew the whole amount in six months.

Do you really think there will ever, ever be spending cuts.
Please name one year in your lifetime when the federal budget was less than the year before...... maybe 45 or 46...maybe...

Do you really think the federal budget will go down, spending cuts, in the rest of your lifetime?

We need more federal money to feed the poor, educate them, health care, house them, train them. The middle class wants more stuff, not less from the central government.

Keep in mind in the Clinton years, the budget grew larger not smaller. The budget was balanced from huge revenue increases which matched huge spending increases.

Some argue the Regan tax cuts grew the economic pie and raised revenue, many others disagree and think it is better if we just raise the marginal rates and convert the capital gain tax and reinstate the estate tax.

In any event I will bet my house vs yours....the budget goes up not down. Spending cuts, never. Spending increases you meant to write I bet.

[hrothgar]

Quick question:

When you talk about the Federal Budget, however are you measuring it?

In particular, are you looking at

1. Nominal dollars expressed as an absolute number

or

2. Inflation adjusted dollars expressed as a percentage of the GNP

I, for one, would argue that failing to account for either the size of the economy or inflation would make any comparison farcical.

[Al_U_Card]

Do you think that the United States of Americorp will eventually insist on turning a profit? (ie a budgetary surplus that can be used to pay down the debt) Or are they going to continue to use the Enron etc. sleight of financial hand to rob the country blind?

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 17 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

Do you think that the United States of Americorp will eventually insist on turning a profit?  (ie a budgetary surplus that can be used to pay down the debt) Or are they going to continue to use the Enron etc. sleight of financial hand to rob the country blind?

If you are asking me, I am all for running deficits every year, forever. I am not a balance the budget nut.
I am more a grow the economy and have jobs for people, nut. IF that means deficits so be it.

But this thread is really about taxes and what approach people will vote for in the USA or their own country.

[han]

Ah, it is only about taxes, not about budget or deficit. Got it.

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Jan 17 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

Quick question:

When you talk about the Federal Budget, however are you measuring it?

In particular, are you looking at

1. Nominal dollars expressed as an absolute number

or

2.  Inflation adjusted dollars expressed as a percentage of the GNP

I, for one, would argue that failing to account for either the size of the economy or inflation would make any comparison farcical.

Yes, you cannot use absolute dollars for meaningful results. Since 1991 the debt has been expressed in terms of Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National Product (to align the US with international accounting standards).

At the end of WWII, the US National Debt stood at a horrendous 114% of GDP, but until 1981 every administration and congress worked together to reduce the debt. When Carter left office in 1981, the debt had been pared to about 33% of the GDP. The presidents accomplishing this feat came from both political parties: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. As each presidential term ended, the new president began with a lower debt than his predecessor.

After Carter, the debt trend reversed direction for the 12 years that Reagan and Bush Sr. held office, and the debt was back up to 68% of GDP when Clinton took over. Under Clinton, the debt declined again as a percentage of GDP, to under 60%. All Bush Jr. had to do was avoid stupid mistakes and the national debt would have continued its sharp deline.

Sadly, Bush Jr. restored fiscal irresponsibility (as he had promised to do) and the the debt is now soaring as a percentage of GDP. During the Clinton years, yearly taxes and expenditures were roughly in balance at about 20-21% of GDP. Now there is a huge gap in those percentages, hence the rapid increase in debt.

mike777, on Jan 17 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

Do you really think there will ever, ever be spending cuts.
Please name one year in your lifetime when the federal budget was less than the year before...... maybe 45 or 46...maybe...

Do you really think the federal budget will go down, spending cuts, in the rest of your lifetime?

We need more federal money to feed the poor, educate them, health care, house them, train them. The middle class wants more stuff, not less from the central government.

Keep in mind in the Clinton years, the budget grew larger not smaller.  The budget was balanced from huge revenue increases which matched huge spending increases.

Some argue the Regan tax cuts grew the economic pie and raised revenue, many others disagree and think it is better if we just raise the marginal rates and  convert the capital gain tax and reinstate the estate tax.

In any event I will bet my house vs yours....the budget goes up not down. Spending cuts, never. Spending increases you meant to write I bet.

As you can see from the chart at the link I gave in my reply to hrothgar, every president since WWII reduced the debt except for Reagan and the two Bushes. Prior to Reagan's nomination, Bush Sr. aptly termed the Reagan economic proposals "voodoo economics."

I think it is reasonable to debate which expenditures are appropriate and which are not. Opinions about that can change as conditions and philosophies change. What is wrong though, is to charge the services we collectively demand to the credit cards of our children and grandchildren.

They will have their own problems to deal with, and mighty expensive ones at that. To demand that they pay for the services we receive now is stealing from them, pure and simple.

[Winstonm]

Quote

f you are asking me, I am all for running deficits every year, forever. I am not a balance the budget nut.
I am more a grow the economy and have jobs for people, nut. IF that means deficits so be it.

Are you saying that whatever spending is required today to facilitate a debt-based econonic expansion should be done, while the burden of paying for that excess should be shifted onto future generations to pay?

[Winstonm]

Quote

The Democrats propose the largest tax increase in history.
The Republicans propose the largest tax cut in history.

This is too simplistic. It's not nearly so cut and dried or easy to analyze.

[mike777]

ok the budget can go up but that means down
ok taxes can go up but that means down.

I thought I said.....deficit ok......growth and jobs...more important, not sure how else i can put my priorities but yours may be different in voting 2008......simple soul.

simple soul.....what tax policy are you for?

I see alot of questions...from posters..not too many positions..

[Al_U_Card]

First $10,000 is tax exempt

Next $90.000 is taxed at the rate required to balance the budgetary expenditures.

Anything above $100,000 is taxed at the rate to pay off the deficit at a rate to reduce the deficit to $0 by 2064

You pay your taxes such that at the end of the year, you write down your income, your tax owed, your tax already paid and how much you owe or are owed.

The tax law codes are abolished. No need for lawyers or accountants. The IRS sends its agents to your house (a routine audit to each taxpayer once every 5-10 years or so) to compare your "declared" income with your current wealth. If all is ok, then you have no problems.

Honesty will be the best policy.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I see alot of questions...from posters..not too many positions..

Well, Mike, we've learned how to do this at the master's feet.

And, no, I am NOT saying that I believe in (fill-in-the-blank).

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 17 2008, 11:16 PM, said:

First $10,000 is tax exempt

Next $90.000 is taxed at the rate required to balance the budgetary expenditures.

Anything above $100,000 is taxed at the rate to pay off the deficit at a rate to reduce the deficit to $0 by 2064

You pay your taxes such that at the end of the year, you write down your income, your tax owed, your tax already paid and how much you owe or are owed.

The tax law codes are abolished. No need for lawyers or accountants.  The IRS sends its agents to your house (a routine audit to each taxpayer once every 5-10 years or so) to compare your "declared" income with your current wealth.  If all is ok, then you have no problems.

Honesty will be the best policy.

All...card states position// great

I only hope....if 50% of us pay zero taxes...then 90% of rest may end up in some kind of jail........i hope you pay zero taxes...

If not...go directly go to jail. you tax cheat.

[mike777]

let me repeat above...
50% pay zero taxes
50% pay allmost all taxes or all


most of you cheat on taxes.....go to jail.....central goverment of your country sends you to jail.........

if most is too much you pick percentage.

[sceptic]

How are you gonna wage war on Iran without putting up taxes

Vote for Tax increases, building bombs makes ecological sense

get real give Bush and his compatriots a fair chance to total ***** up the world

[helene_t]

Hannie, on Jan 18 2008, 12:41 AM, said:

Ah, it is only about taxes, not about budget or deficit. Got it.

Lol, that's why you and I will never become (successful) politicians, Han. You need to be able to talk about these matters so that morons get the illusion that they understand what it's about.

Anyway, other things being equal I would vote for the candidate who promises the most devastating, nasty and unjust tax increases. Chances are that said candidate will be the most honest one and that they will not differ in other respects.

Sceptic said:

get real give Bush and his compatriots a fair chance to total ***** up the world

Right, now that the trillions of dollars for the *****-the-World project have been spent, it would be a waste not to carry on with it.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Jan 18 2008, 03:45 AM, said:

let me repeat above...
50% pay zero taxes
50% pay allmost all taxes or all


most of you cheat on taxes.....go to jail.....central goverment of your country sends you to jail.........

if most is too much you pick percentage.

Geez, Mike, when you see the speed-trap (cop with radar unit up ahead) do you keep speeding half of the time?

[han]

mike777, on Jan 17 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

I see alot of questions...from posters..not too many positions..

As usual I see a lot of words from you but no meaning.

I hope that the new president will cut down on wars. This should save a lot of money.

I hope that the new president will make healthcare available for everybody. I think that it is a disgrace that in a country as rich as this there are so many people who cannot afford to see a doctor.

I hope that the new president will make sure that the level of many American schools is goes up dramatically. I am not hoping for new catchy slogans.

There are several other things to be done in this country that I think are very worthwhile.

I would be happy to pay extra taxes for causes like these. Higher taxes on gasoline wouldn't be bad either in my opinion.

My expectations for the new president are very low, but maybe I will be surprised.

[han]

helene_t, on Jan 18 2008, 05:27 AM, said:

Lol, that's why you and I will never become (successful) politicians, Han. You need to be able to talk about these matters so that morons get the illusion that they understand what it's about.

Don't put words in my mouth please, I never called anybody here a moron.

Vote for me and I will lower your taxes. This means more money in the pockets of the middle class, money that you and your families can spend. I will also do everything in my power to strike hard at those who threaten our freedom. I will increase the level of education, no child will be left behind. I will cut down on the number of rules that hold back our companies, and makes sure that we continue to have the strongest and best economy in the world. God bless America.

Helene, would you vote for me if I can say all these things with a straight face?