All posts in the topic cutting taxes (Short link)
Summary
- There are 11 posts — by 11 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by George Dawson at Oct 10 17:34 UTC
No one can cut taxes with our current economy. We are now so far in debt I
doubt our great grandchildren will ever see this country come around again.
I am so tired of all the finger pointing in this campaign.
Do not tell me what the other guy is doing wrong; tell me what you are
going to do right and HOW you are going to do it.
I will be glad when this campaign is over with and I pray our country can
survive whoever gets in there.
Linda Fort
rural Winona
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 06:53:20 -0500
"LindaF" <lbfort@ridge-runner.com> wrote:
> No one can cut taxes with our current economy. We are
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 06:53:20 -0500
"LindaF" <lbfort@ridge-runner.com> wrote:
> No one can cut taxes with our current economy. We are
Cutting taxes on the federal level in many cases increases
the amount of tax collected. That's why even talking about
raising the capital gains tax is brain dead stupid. It's
probably already affected the market as investors are
dumping everything to avoid the Obama tax increases.
As for Nancy Bolin's insulting inference that I "have a
crush on Palin" all I can say is that Nancy and everyone
else that is falling for Obama's charm may want to look
past the empty suit and find out what he really stands for
and what he really plans. Of course that is nearly
impossible because the media has given him a pass and the
day time TV Oprah zombies have decided issues don't
matter, looks do. Start getting used to the word
"Comrade".
Lee Surma
Maple Grove
Lee is correct to a point. Cutting taxes and any level can increase total taxes collected. However, in order for this to happen, the people who receive the tax cuts have to spend the additional disposable income. The arguments made by the Republicans in supporting the trickle down effect of the Regan tax cuts just don't hold water. People who already have enough money to meet their basic needs and all their wildest wants will not spend any more money just because they have lower taxes. Arguing these cuts will be invested and thus create a larger economy is again spurious. Anyone who has an entrepreneurial streak will develop these companies with or without the need for the tax cuts. In fact, those at the upper income brackets know how to create businesses without using their own money anyway. Lower and middle class workers will always spend their increased disposable income to buy basic needs and wants. Of course, those who have trained themselves to put money into savings and retirement accounts will likely put most of that money in those accounts also. Mike Fratto Payne Phalen Please help those who don't get enough to eat. http://oyh.org http://hungersolutions.org The future depends more on what we do between now and then Than what we did in the past.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Fratto [mailto:mfratto@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:57 AM
>To: <email obscured>; Lee
>Subject: Re: [MN-Pol] cutting taxes
>
>Lee is correct to a point.
>
>Cutting taxes and any level can increase total taxes
>collected. However, in order for this to happen, the people
>who receive the tax cuts have to spend the additional
>disposable income.
This is not correct. Increased income taxes from reduced income tax rates
happen when people chose to earn more income because they get to keep a
larger share of that income. Spending has nothing to do with increased
income taxes (except as spending raises the incomes of OTHER people).
>The arguments made by the Republicans in supporting the
>trickle down effect of the Regan tax cuts just don't hold
>water. People who already have enough money to meet their
>basic needs and all their wildest wants will not spend any
>more money just because they have lower taxes. Arguing these
>cuts will be invested and thus create a larger economy is
>again spurious.
This is a complete misunderstanding of human nature. Many people earn more
money just because they can or to overcome a challenge or to meet a goal.
People seldom stop earning money because they have "enough". This is
especially true of those with the highest incomes.
Glen Schumann
Winona, MN
In a message dated 10/9/2008 12:24:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, <email obscured> writes: This is not correct. Increased income taxes from reduced income tax rates happen when people chose to earn more income because they get to keep a larger share of that income. OK - that is actually the silliest thing that Republican's use as a basis to argue for lower tax rates for the wealthy. My god the tax rate is going from 35% to 38% I guess I better stop earning money! How can anyone say that or type that with a straight face is beyond me. So, these are the current Federal tax rates on your AFTER DEDUCTIONS income... $ 0 to $8,025 = 10% $ 8,025 to 32,550 the tax is $802.50 + 15% over $8,025 $ 32,550 to 78,850 the tax is $4,481.25 + 25% over $32,550 $78,850 to $164,550 the tax is $16,056.25 + 28% over $78,850 $164,550 to $357,700 the tax is $40,052.25 + 33% over $164,550 $357,700 and up the tax is $103,791.75 + 35% over $357,700 So, after you have deducted the lease on your Mercedes Benz and all of the cost of your house cleaner and maid... and you still show an income of $357,700 dollars you really mean to tell me that you would rather stop making money than pay an extra 3% (38% vs 35%) on that portion that you make over the $357,700? That means that the extra $15,000 on the next $500,000 that you make would be so painful that people would just up and stop making money. OMG - I never thought that the affluent were in that much pain. JMONTOMEPPOF Chuck Repke Saint Paul **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:15 PM, <Chuckrepke@aol.com> wrote:
> So, after you have deducted the lease on your Mercedes Benz
I can deduct the lease on a Benz? I need to get me an accountant, and a Benz!
> That means that the extra $15,000 on the next $500,000 that you make would
> be so painful that people would just up and stop making money.
>
> OMG - I never thought that the affluent were in that much pain.
So if Chuck is right then why don't we jack the rate to 75% or even 100%.
John Harris
minneapolis
Let's tax the people with high incomes. Why not? We've done in the past:
In 1944 (we had a war, just like today) and the top marginal rate was 94
percent. Taxpayers making more than 1 million (adjusted to 2005 rate), paid
65 percent of their total income in federal taxes.
In 1955 the top 400 income earners paid 51.2 percent of their income in
federal tax (after loopholes).
Mid-twentieth century the average marginal rate on high income earners (over
$400,000 per year) for many years was 90 percent.
IN 2005 taxpayers making more than 1 million had a top marginal rate of 35
percent. They paid just 23 percent of their income in federal tax.
What percent of a person making $30,000 today is paid in taxes?
And don't give me the flat tax argument. The rich don't have earned income
from working.
On Oct 9, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Lee wrote:
>
>
> Cutting taxes on the federal level in many cases increases
> the amount of tax collected. That's why even talking about
> raising the capital gains tax is brain dead stupid. It's
> probably already affected the market as investors are
> dumping everything to avoid the Obama tax increases.
I saw a very interesting panel presentation on C-Span last night.
Economists each offered six points critical to the current
discussion- three good, three bad. Some gave examples from other
economies that could lead to a better U.S. economy (Sweden, the U.K.)
U.K. examples included less than 1% taxes (fees) on trades of various
kinds, not enough to be onerous alone but aggregate significant
payments to the treasury.
Another view is that mid to late 2009 will be the start (not the end)
of the deep period of economic loss. The end, if the Keating scandal
is some measure, will be eight to ten years out - 2019, perhaps.
Another view is that the start of this living on credit began in the
1950s over 50 years ago. The savings from other countries has propped
up the American economy until as one put it, the filet mignon turned
to sausage. When the foreigners opened their packages and saw sausage
instead of steak, they slowed or stopped lending.
We are starving for cash but the cause is not mortgages. The
mortgages are a symptom according to one economist. Very bad and
stupid practices have been going on with no expectation of loss of
liquidity. Cash will always be there, the banks believed.
At the family level, mortgages have been taken out at amounts and
rates far beyond reasonable expectations of income. Put the mortgage
and car together (with maintenance) and on an annual basis and if
that is 85% or more of income, soon debt flips the family over into
bankruptcy.
Taxpayers will soon reach the $1 trillion mark of the cost of the
Iraq war. Another $700 billion has gone into the cushion (not the
bailout) strategy for cash starved financial institutions. What fears
sellers could possibly have of Obama inspired tax increases in their
decisions is by far eclipsed by their fear of losing value.
The new president will not have the ability to impose reforms at
will. The market, Congress, in some cases the courts, and the
president will have to work together.
The old "free market" living on credit of the 1950s seems to be
dying. How much regulation the new market will have will surely be a
fascinating case study. It is interesting that we thought Communism
had been defeated by Democracy - or more accurately, the free market
of capitalism. Now we see that that was charade as well. The next
generation or two will have to suffer until the true outcome of the
ideology battle is known.
The answer could well be neither.
John Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:15 PM, <Chuckrepke@aol.com> wrote:
>
> So if Chuck is right then why don't we jack the rate to 75% or even 100%.
>
>
So now you are beginning to understand at last. The way to cut deficits
is to do what Clinton did, raise taxes and cut spending. Lowering taxes
does not get you there.
The question is raise by how much and raise on whom.
Obama, if I heard correctly during the debates, is proposing modest
increases that will take us back to the tax levels used for higher
income people under Ronald Reagan.
I have never met a person who decided not to earn more money or have a
spouse go back to work because of increased taxes. I have met people
who decided not to have a spouse work because of day care costs but they
were not high income people.
Sigh.
> So now you are beginning to understand at last. The way to
> cut deficits
> is to do what Clinton did, raise taxes and cut spending.
> Lowering taxes
> does not get you there.
But to be fair to Lee, either does "raising taxes and cutting spending".
Clinton's success was pretty much entirely due to a concomitant (and unrelated)
economic boom which had vastly more to do with Clinton's ability to cash the
"peace dividend" - the national economy had finally adjusted to the end of the
Cold War, and the extra money available for civilian uses caused the economy,
predictably, to zoom.
And make no mistake - it would have zoomed, perhaps more, WITHOUT Clinton.
Make no mistake about it - 1994 was a reaction to Clinton's overreaching, and
the "do-nothing" approach that the Contract With America imposed on the Clinton
administration was very likely what made Clinton's regime such a relative
success.
Trying to connect Clinton's success with his policies waterboards the context
of the times. Bad idea.
I'll await the inevitable avalanche of ad-hominem fabian-socialist
non-responsive talking points which seem to be the only real fare on this
forum, but for Lee, John and I.
Mitch Berg
The Midway
First of all there is no evidence for trickle down despite all of the
Republican propaganda. The only actual study that I have found shows that
there is no effect. And as far as the Democrats go - you are in denial if you
think that Bill Clinton fixed the American economy. It was largely propped up
by record capital gains taxes from the internet bubble. Many economic experts
consider the bubbles (internet, commodities, real estate) along with leveraging
and deficits to be the main reasons why the economy is currently tanking. Bill
Fleckenstein was on MPR this morning describing this as a 20 year process and I
think that history will prove him right. Let's not forget that as Clinton was
exiting things were starting to implode despite the rosy projections of a
trillion dollar surplus over the next 10 years. Will will have probably have an
8 - 10 trillion dollar deficit instead. I am factoring in that the bad
mortgage paper will not produce any significant revenue for the taxpayers.
George Dawson
St. Paul, MN