House Democrats today will propose the largest tax hike in American history, one which will add more poor people to the tax rolls and which will further burden millions of small businesses. They will position this as fiscal discipline while refusing to trim federal spending, according to Robert Novak:
The new Democratic majority begins dancing the next phase of the tax-and-spend minuet in the House of Representatives today. Following the example set by their Senate brethren last Friday, House Democrats will adopt a budget resolution containing the largest tax increase in U.S. history amid massive national inattention.
Nobody’s tax payment will increase immediately, but the budget resolutions set a pattern for years ahead. The House version would increase non-defense, non-emergency spending by $22.5 billion for next fiscal year, with such spending to rise 2.4 percent in each of the next three years. To pay for these increases, the resolution would raise taxes by close to $400 billion over five years — about $100 billion more than what was passed in the Senate.
It had been assumed that the new Democratic majority would end President Bush’s relief in capital gains, dividend and estate taxation. The simultaneous rollback of Bush-sponsored income tax cuts was a surprise. This reflects Democrats’ belief that they can survive a long-term commitment to bigger government. Here is an audacious effort to raise the banner of fiscal responsibility while increasing spending and taxes.
This Democratic strategy is encapsulated in what Harry Hopkins, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s main man, is alleged to have told a friend at New York’s Empire City race track in August 1938: “We will spend and spend, and tax and tax, and elect and elect.” While Hopkins denied ever saying those words, they represented successful Democratic government and political strategy for the next two decades.
Well, as pundits across the political spectrum note, elections matter. Many people abandoned the GOP in the midterms because of their lack of discipline in federal spending. Discretionary spending rose by over 30% during the six years that the Republicans controlled both elective branches of government. They reduced taxes and grew the economy, but the GOP never delivered on their initial promise to reduce government an rein in spending.
Based on those failures, the nation gave the Democrats the majority in both chambers of Congress. What did we get? No decrease in federal spending; the Democrats want to grow the government by 2.4% each year, which would mean adding close to $100 billion in spending each year. In order to do that, they want to increase taxes across the board, choking off economic growth and making people even more dependent on the government.
By 2011, the added tax burden on every taxpayer would be over $1100 dollars. Twenty-six million small businesses would have to pay almost $4,000 in extra taxes. More than five million Americans whose incomes are too low to pay taxes now would have to start paying in 2011, making the Democratic plan more regressive than what it seeks to replace.
Democrats and taxes, together again after twelve years in the wilderness. It sounds like a movie romance — and we’re footing the bill for the production.
Elections have consequences. If the Dems get the White House, they’ll be able to hike taxes at will.And if the current Administration doesn’t get their act together, we’ll just be handing it to them.
This will be interesting – will GWB sign it?
Of course, the largest tax increase in history would join the largest national debt in our history and a series of the largest annual deficits (although they have come down a little).
Ah, the Democrats 2008 campaign slogan:
“Vote for us, we’ll tax you more!”
Yup, that’s a real winner.
Of course Bush wouldn’t sign this. It’s an opening offer, a starting point. It’s a guy walking on the lot and offering $25K for a $35K car — actually hoping and willing to pay $30K.
But I do think it demonstrates that the love affair Democrats have had with both taxes and spending never really ended.
Way too many Democrats claimed the banner of “fiscal conservative” — even Howard Dean referred to himself as such. That’s the new parlance, apparently, for somebody who likes both high spending and high taxes….as to distinguish them from somebody who only likes high spending.
It just furthers the disappointment I have for the failure of the Republican majority to govern and act like Republicans. They were perfectly willing to do the politically easy stuff — cut taxes — but wholly unwilling to do the hard part that goes hand in hand with that philosophy — rein in spending.
So being sold a platform of reform, smaller govt., and fiscal responsibility and being delivered massive growth in the Federal Government and failed foreign policy agendas, is better than voting for the party that does what it you know it will do? Sorry the GOP and the Conservative movement failed miserably and duped millions of its faithful, hmm that’s the party I want to support. I can’t wait to see which pro-choice, pro gun control last minute convert to artificial conservativism the GOP elevates to take the helm. How can you honestly not be ashamed of your Party?You all were played as Stooges.
So now it’s the Republican’s fault the Democrats are governing like the completely irresponsible jackasses that they are?
Armchair Presidents who have no idea what it takes to get legislation passed in this town, think that with a wave of a wand, the Republicans could have “reined in spending”.
The Republicans had a very thin majority and they have a lot of RINOs that vote like Democrats. The Republicans are not the thugs on party discipline that the Democrats are. After lying every day during their campaigns, the so-called “blue dog” Democrats are perfect pink sheep, voting in lockstep with corrupt idiots Pelosi and Reid.
For all those doctrainaire, silly little checklist “conservatives” who put the current collection of Congressional clowns into the majority, congratulations! You made your precious little point, now we all have to live with the completely worthless politicians you allowed into office.
The Donks don’t seem to be reading the 2006 election results too well.
The GOP gained power in 1994 and held it on a fiscal discipline platform. They lost power when the perception (accurate, by the way) arose that they were not being fiscally disciplined.
The Donks ran in 2006 with a lot of rather conservative talk, including fiscal discipline, along with their anti-war blather.
If they reveal their real selves – drunken sailor level tax and spenders – they run the real risk of making themselves even more odious to the public than the GOP (and pushing the squishy middle reluctantly back to the GOP).
Oh please….when did the democrats say they wouldn’t raise taxes? Many of them bragged that they WOULD raise taxes. They virtually guaranteed that if they held congress when the bush tax cuts expired, they would do nothing to keep taxes low. And now, when they do what they told everyone they would, we’re surprised???
America voted for the democrats, knowing full well they would raise taxes and pre-emptively surrender in a war we were clearly winning (if you bothered to talk to anyone in iraq EXCEPT al qaeda stringers). We did this to ourselves. Crying about it now won’t make any difference at all.
The main effect this will have on the budget will be to reduce the amount of money the govt has coming in. As the evil rich realize the democrats are out to get them again, they will hold off on investment, which will create negative job growth and negative wage growth, reversing the 2 best features of the Bush tax cuts, which is all they wanted from the beginning. And when these results become public knowledge, guess who the democrats will blame? You got it, REPUBLICANS! And yet again, they WILL get away with it.
You want to blame someone, look in the mirror.
By 2011, the added tax burden on every taxpayer would be over $1100 dollars.
Like hell it will. More likely is “By 2011, the added tax burden on every taxpayer would average over $1100 dollars”
The added tax burden will increase the top 20% of taxpayers burden by $3,300 or so, and the rest of the country will just get even more “entitlements” than they do now.
The Democrats are no more tax and spend than the Republicans, but they are something much worse when it comes to taxation: They use it to buy votes. Collect money from the wealthy few and pay it out to those who are willing to sell their votes for the handout.
Note: That handout need not only be in cash, but it is in benefits, tax credits, grants, guaranteed loans……The list is long and varied.
There is nothing noble in what they do. As proof, just look at their anti-war stance.
Woody
Captain,
I remember your disappointment with the Rs prior to the ’06 elections.
I hope you are happy now.
I said that there was more at stake than pork and driving out the RINOs.
You ought to go back and recover some of the themes you were promoting before Nov ’06. I don’t think you will be in current agreement with your positions then.
People generally get the government they deserve. I hope you are feeling deserving.
No surprise here…
democrats To Propose Largest Tax Hike In History.
Gee…democrats raising taxes. At least some things are consistent.
Robert Novak reports:
The new Democratic majority begins dancing the next phase of the tax-and-spend minuet in the Hous…
Democrats raising taxes? Whoa. Shocker. Didn’t see that one coming.
Cap’n Ed: It sounds like a movie romance — and we’re footing the bill for the production.
Well, it’s nice to see that the US will start actually footing the bill for something, rather than just telling the Chinese & Saudis to put it on the tab.
Sad fact is, all those fun & glorious things like foreign adventurism and Homeland Security bureaucracies have to be paid for somehow. Kudos to the Democrats for having the guts to admit it.
Well, it’s nice to see that the US will start actually footing the bill for something, rather than just telling the Chinese & Saudis to put it on the tab.
Sad fact is, all those fun & glorious things like foreign adventurism and Homeland Security bureaucracies have to be paid for somehow. Kudos to the Democrats for having the guts to admit it.
Ugh, what a facile understanding of international finance. Sad fact is, all the raised taxes are going to go for domestic pet projects and new governmental bureaucracies instead of the things you are lamenting aren’t being paid for.
Every 12 years democrats have to be elected to handle the record deficits that the GOP seems to always get us into.
krm … the donks read the election results quite well thank you. They are in power now not because of the “spend and spend” GOP congress, or because they wanted a “tax and spend” Dem Congress … they are in power solely because of GWB and the utter dispise America has for this failed presidency. The public is used to BOTH parties spending and growing the government … what they were not used to was failed leadership in so many areas provided by the Bushies. Who has time to even begin to list them all.
Fiscally responsible Democrats
Accepted wisdom is that one of the reasons the voters gave Republicans the boot was that the Republicans, although they did lower taxes and increase federal revenues, spent money like it was going out of style. The Democrats, for the first time in the…
Ed, let’s recall how the U.S. budget got to where it is today:
Huge tax cuts for the most wealthy Americans and big increases in defense spending that wind up in the pockets of the likes of Halliburton are not things Republicans should be proud about.
First Cup 03.29.07
Give a frontiersman coffee and tobacco, and he will endure any privation, suffer any hardship, but let him be without these two necessaries of the woods, and he becomes irresolute and murmuring. ~ U.S. Army Lt. William Whiting, 1849
…
‘big increases in defense spending”
Oh yeah that big increase in defense spending has reached a whoppingt 3.9% of the GNP.
‘huge tax cuts for the most wealthy Americans’
Really, then how come Pelosi came here to NYC the other nite to wine and dine at a $28,000 per couple Democrat fundraiser with Donald Trump and Family, George Soros and Family and various other billionaire s(who most likely claim their primary residence in Palm Beach, Florida in order to avoid NYC’s high city taxation) Now since these wealthy Americans are receiving huge tax cuts I must question why they are major Democrat financiers.
SFD,
The tax cuts kicked off an economic boom that looks to reduce the defict to zero two years earlier than plan.
Despite the tax cuts the rich are actually paying a greater share of Federal revenue.
OTOH a strangled economy should be really good for the Dems going into ’08.
The Rs can run on “tax increases caused the recession”. Fine by me.
Don’t say you weren’t warned.
I seem to remmember reports that, after the tax cuts, tax revinews increaced at a rate faster than the rate of GDP growth. This is a strong indication that we are sitting on the wrong side of the Laugher curve.
Which would meen that any tax increace ment to “pay for” anything is actually going to decreace revenues, running of the deficite twice.
Which, of course, is the folly of “pay-go.”
At this point, there is no reason to rais taxes except as a way to punish people trying to become rich. It doesn’t hurt the already-rich much–they already have the money. But increacing taxes holds back those trying to accumulate wealth, thus maintaining the uper class as an exclusive club.
What really gets me as a small business owner is that in additon to the heavy taxation our small business forks, in addition to providing income to our employess, our small business also provides health insurance to our employees. However, since I reside in a different state I do not have access to our company’s health insurance and must fork out an additional health insurance expense just to insure that should I become ill our small business will not be stripped clean of any assets should I ever face the personal responsibility of funding my own long term healthcare.
Meanwhile, Pelosi has enough wealth to spend $1000 a pop for her weekly Botox treatments.
Oh yeah that big increase in defense spending has reached a whoppingt 3.9% of the GNP.
Back in the 1950s, taxes were correspondingly much higher as a percent of GNP to cover defense spending, which was why there was no federal budget deficit then. Bush on the other hand cut taxes, especially on the most wealthy, while upping defense spending. That’s mostly why the federal debt has grown since Bush took office.
The tax cuts kicked off an economic boom that looks to reduce the defict to zero two years earlier than plan.
The Bush tax cuts have raised nowhere near as much additional revenue as advertised, M. Simon. Nor is it clear that it hasn’t been the housing bubble, not the Bush tax cuts, that’s chiefly responsible for it.
You are wrong starfleet_dude
The marginal tax rate(I can read you’re at least smart enough to know what marginal tax rate is) for the wealthiest Americans has not decreased under Bush’s tax cuts while the marginal tax rate for the lowest incomes don’t exist at all.
There was no federal deficit in the 1950’s because the Collectivists (ie Socialism, Marxist, Stalinist combined) hadn’t yet infected the national mindset into believing in the misery of creating The Great Society which did nothing but inspire The Worst Generation into becoming useful idiots who rejoice in their road to serfdom.
Count to 10 wrote (March 29, 2007 11:34 AM):
At this point, there is no reason to rais taxes except as a way to punish people trying to become rich.
BINGO! Give the man a kewpie doll!
The dems’ monomaniacal need to raise taxes isn’t about lowering the deficit (they plan to INCREASE spending), properly funding Homeland Security or defense, or even getting more Americans to rely some kind of handout from Uncle Sam:
It’s all about punishing “the rich”. Listen to what libs say when they talk about tax cuts or tax hikes. In the case of the former, “the rich” aren’t paying enough. They’re making too much money! It isn’t fair! WAAAHHHH!
In the latter case, justice is finally being done, and the hated “rich” are being made to pay “their fair share”. That’ll teach those rich bastards!
It’s all about class envy and the sick mindset that, if you can’t have it, then nobody should. It’s the legislative equivalent of trashing your neighbor’s shiny new car or egging his new house because, dammit! it’s not fair for him to have something that you don’t.
O’ course, the vast majority of dem politicians are filthy rich themselves, but don’t think that any tax increases are going to hurt them. As Count points out, the rich usually know how to protect their money; tax increases simply put the brakes on their making more (unless their like DiFi and can steer government contracts to their husbands’ companies).
So why do they do it? To cater to their rabid base that delights in making “the rich” suffer. It doesn’t matter that the people who actually DO suffer from tax hikes are small business owners and the people they employ (or unemploy when they can’t afford to keep them on the payroll anymore); as long as your average meanspirited lefty thinks that some rich bastard is going to go first, he’ll walk through the gates of hell with a smile on his face and a song in his heart.
Once again, libs demonstrate that they are immature, selfish, and intellectually bankrupt.
Starfleet dude, you are spreading falsehoods.
Federal tax receipts in fiscal year 2000 were $1.991 trillion. Federal tax receipts for fiscal 2007 will be $2.415 trillion, an increase of some $424 billion or over 20%. Defense spending over the same period has gone from $294.5 billion to $527.4 billion, an increase of $232.9 billion. Thus, the increase in tax revenues is nearly double the increase in defense spending.
The debt has increased because total federal spending over the same period has gone from $1.863 trillion to $2.770 trillion, an increase of $907 billion. The increase in non-defense spending, therefore, is $674.1 billion, or nearly three times the increase in defense spending.
Had we held the line on non-defense spending, we would now be running a surplus, and the national debt would be shrinking, not expanding.
You can see all the numbers here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf
Democrats consistently believe that if they raise TAX RATES, they will raise TAX RECEIPTS.
This is so idiotic. Does the supermarket sell more bread when it raises the price? Hell, no.
People change their behavior in response to changing prices — and that most definitely includes the price of work. (Do you work harder or less hard when your hourly rate goes down?!)
Bush cut tax rates; we all remember that, right? According to Democrat-think, that should be really bad for tax receipts and the deficit. Well, the corporate tax receipts last year at an all-time record high (which the MSM probably ignored).
Correspondingly, the federal deficit DROPPED by about 50% since the year before, which is truly staggering. Again I doubt the press covered it much, but the Cap’n probably did.
Yet the reality-based community ignores the empirical evidence and ignores human nature. Leftism is truly a religion.
Docjim is correct. The Democrats desire to raise taxes has nothing to do with reducing the debt — it’s purpose is to punish the “rich”, specifically, to punish the productive rich.
The left doesn’t hate the idle rich. They accept people like John Kerry and John Edwards — precisely because these men did not earn their fortunes. And this reveals the real object of their hatred: the left hates the man of ability, the man who earns his way in life by following his own independent judgment. The left hates reason and everything reason makes possible: success, independence, competence, the production and accumulation of wealth, etc.
This hatred for the men of independent thought and ability is actually the psychological projection of the leftist’s own self-hatred. He hates himself because he surrendered his own ability to think, his reason — and, consequently, his own competence — he surrendered them when he accepted the left’s world-view, which was pushed down his throat throughout his entire education. At some point, he gave in to the pressure — usually to win the approval of his teachers and peers — and agreed to “think like they do”.
Since reason and the ability to think are our only means of dealing with reality, the leftist is a helpless little conformist, unfit to live by his own mind and reduced to parroting and repeating whatever talking points his intellectual masters give him.
As a result, he is eaten by self-loathing and rage about his own status. But he dare not admit that the actual object of his hatred is himself — instead, he needs an external target. The men of reason, the men of achievement and ability, the self-made men who earned their way to wealth — these are the targets of his hatred. And he will back any law or regulation that strangles, restrains or punishes such men.
Yes Boston, let’s all rejoice and join hands and thank the GOP Congress for it’s free spending ways and the $300.00 income tax refund check we all received which we gladly spent at our local walmart. Thanks King George.
Monkei,
So you have no comment on the record tax receipts that the Bush administration raked in? No comment on the deficit falling in half in ONE YEAR?
I thought those were things to rejoice over.
I’ve been hearing your side complain about the deficit and how we are going to pay for it all (all the things you don’t approve of, that is). Yet when we demonstrate that we can bring in more money than you do, you snark about Walmart instead.
RE: Monkei (March 29, 2007 02:00 PM)
Do I approve of the GOP Congress’ free spending ways? No. But I approve of it in view of the Dems’ relative freer spending ones. The GOP has to rein in whatever spending they propose since invariably, the Dems desire even more. You can never outspend the contemporary Democrat except on issues directly related to the military.
By the way, what did you do with your $300.00? ‘Cause, you could always give it back to ease the burden on the government or others who didn’t get as much as you did.
Bostonian : Bush cut tax rates; we all remember that, right? According to Democrat-think, that should be really bad for tax receipts and the deficit. Well, the corporate tax receipts last year at an all-time record high (which the MSM probably ignored).
There are those who might suggest that other factors are also in play:
I was struck by one curious thing when re-reading the Cap’n’s quote of Novak: The House version would increase non-defense, non-emergency spending by $22.5 billion for next fiscal year, with such spending to rise 2.4 percent in each of the next three years. To pay for these increases, the resolution would raise taxes by close to $400 billion over five years — about $100 billion more than what was passed in the Senate.
Let me see: new spending of $22.5-billion, increasing at 2.4% … let’s call that a total of $120-billion over five years. To be financed by increased taxes of $400-billion over five years. So what’s happening to the difference?
Apparently wars cost money.
And Bostonian – the deficit fell in half in one year? Wow. That is amazing accounting gymnastics considering you’re spending about 6 billion a month in Iraq.
I apologize for the lousy formatting in my last post. The link is to: http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006976.shtml
For those of you who wanted to send a message to the previous congress, you succeeded beyond your wildest expectations. We are now headed for Jimmy Carter’s Double Digit Economy:
1) Double digit mortgage interest rates
2) Double digit inflation
3) Double digit unemployment
Small business is the driving force behind our current economy, when the democrats get done putting the small business out of business, we can expect things to really get bad. We’ll all be following Jimmy Carter’s advice this winter, “Put on a sweater, turn off the lights and turn down the heat. I guess people were nostalgic for the good old days.
All right, Dave you made me look it up.
I was remembering this piece in USA Today:
“The deficit for the first four months of the current budget year is down sharply from the same period a year ago as the government continues to benefit from record levels of tax collections. The Treasury Department reported Monday that the deficit for the budget year that began Oct. 1 totals $42.2 billion, down 57.2% from the same period a year ago.”
OK, so that’s the deficit for the budget year, which isn’t the deficit itself (my bad), but there is a similar trend on the deficit itself.
Deficit as of last October: $247.7 billion (see e.g.: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220076/)
Deficit as of 2005:
$427 billion (see e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35029-2005Jan25.html)
Deficit as of 2004 was even higher than that (close to half a trillion).
So when the deficit can go from 500 billion to half that in two years, you are talking about something pretty volatile, not the monster threat that it is often made out to be.
More interesting, though, is the way you guys ignore the fed’s RECORD TAX RECEIPTS; see the same USA Today article or see this (which references an LAT piece):
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1693.html
It turns out that when you don’t take all of people’s money, they work more.
USA today article is here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-26-def_x.htm
Hey guys – I think this is just the democrats not renewing the tax cuts the republicans put in place –
This is not new taxes, just the expiration of the republican tax cuts – The ones they never made permanent – So I guess if you want, you can blame the republicans for not making it permanent – Personally though, if it fixes our budget, I’m down –
Bostonian : It turns out that when you don’t take all of people’s money, they work more.
True enough, B, but not particularly relevant. The big drivers of increased government revenues have been corporate taxes, which have been driven by very low interest rates and low depreciation; and taxes on the wealthy, which have been driven by stock market gains (especially option exercises!).
Boom times will not last forever. And in boom times … a nation should be running a massive surplus, not preening itself on small reductions in the need to borrow.
Let’s have a little more fiscal conservativism and a little less irresponsible tax cuts.
“It sounds like a movie romance — and we’re footing the bill for the production.”
No, it sounds like the court of the freaking Emperor Nero. Barbarians on the borders, so don’t pay the legions and tax the tradesmen to give bread and circuses to the proles…
Just a reminder, the Contract with America said that deficit spending was so deplorable that the Republican Party would work to pass a balanced budget amendment. With in one month after Bush had won the presidency and the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate, the Republicans removed all of the pay as you go spending restrictions and by the end of that first year we were deficit spending. I voted for Republicans thinking they would honor that contract, that they would work towards smaller government and continued fiscal responsibility. I was betrayed, and will never vote for a Republican again. There is no “conservative” party, there are two big government parties and one party, at least, taxes their own generation for their follies rather than the next. You can blame “liberals” all you want, as far as I am concerned whining and blaming others is now the hall mark of the “conservative” movement, but the bottom line is that this is something you created yourselves, live with it.
I’ve found the source of some of that extra tax revenue!
ConocoPhillips paid about $6,262-million in 2004, $9,907-million in 2005, and $12,783-million in 2006. So there’s one example of doubling tax revenue – worth about $6-billion – in just three years.
Is this what Bostonion meant by working harder?
Again – I’m pretty sure this is just the republican’s tax cuts expiring –
If you want to blame anyone, blame the republicans who are responsible for this – They were the ones who cut the taxes, and they are the ones who put an expiration date on them, and now the expiration date is coming up – that’s all
Bostonian – wow- you are off the mark completely –
1st, this isn’t the federal deficit, it’s merely the budget deficit – So even when we balance it, we are still going to be in a huge hole –
Secondly – Do you know how many legitimate programs have been cut to make it go down a little bit?
And we are still left with something like 4-5 trillion in debt –
But more than anything else – Conservatives love to talk about what’s good for business is good for you – So, according to you Bostonian, since the had record levels of tax collection, that should mean we are all doing pretty well right?
wrong –
The income gap between rich and poor in the
United States has increased significantly, The New York Times online
edition reported Thursday.
According to the report, new analyses of 2005 tax data shows that
the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income
as the bottom 150 million Americans.
Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the
average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap
from 1980.
The report cites Internal Revenue Service data analyzed by
economist Professor Emmanuel Saez of the University of California,
Berkeley, and Professor Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of
Economics.
If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the
benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” the report quoted
Professor Saez as saying. “It can have important political
consequences,” the professor said.
While total reported income in the US increased almost 9 per cent
in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available,
average incomes for those in the bottom 90 per cent dipped slightly
compared with the year before, dropping 172 dollars, or 0.6 per cent.
what you say?
It will be a cold day in hell before a “progressive” admits that increasing tax rates hurts the economy.
I don’t know why I bother.
No what’s funny bostonian – Is that you can sit here with a (assumed) straight face, and tell us all that a 245 billion dollar budget deficit is a good thing – remember when we had surpluses?
Bostonian : It will be a cold day in hell before a “progressive” admits that increasing tax rates hurts the economy.
Indeed. And it will be even colder when a Republican self-styled conservative admits that’s maybe it’s a good idea to pay the bills.
If you want to spend money – as the Bush administration most assuredly does – you have to do at least one of three things:
(i) Print the money
(ii) Borrow the money
(iii) Tax the money
Fortunately, option (i) was discredited in the ’70’s, but there are still too many deadbeats who figure (ii) works forever.
–According to the report, new analyses of 2005 tax data shows that
the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income
as the bottom 150 million Americans.–
What say I?
The 150 million get a lot more “in kind” than the 300,000 do.
And no, I don’t remember when the deficit was zero.
And $4-$5 trillion is peanuts. Conveniently, that’s what we pay those who own our bonds.
Considering that “poor” might now be defined as making $120K or less……
THURS MAR 29 Miss Piggy Goes to the Vet!
Kudos to
The economic “boom” (or bust depending on where you live) was due in large part to the nationwide housing boom.
Now that ARMs are inching upwards we are seeing foreclosures jump upwards as well. In addition as housing demands slows down, housing starts have slowed with it – causing a decrease of housing related jobs.
*WHEN* (not IF) this continues over the next several months, you will see other sectors related to the housing industry lose steam as well – newbie mortgage brokers and real estate agents who were hoping to catch the wave of wealth will find themselves without much business.
Yet considering that the housing market is an extremely local phenomenon, YMMV.
For all the “conservatives” who want to blame those who didn’t vote for Republicans for this tax hike…shame.
The Repubs got voted out because they acted like Democrats. Can you prove to us that had the Repubs maintained control of the Congress that “we” would not still be on a spending spree? How do you “know” the corrupt Repubs would not be worse than the Democrats? By their past 6 years (or so) performance? I think not.
The reason we are at the mercy of the Dems is because of corrupt Republican behavior.
And by the way, when’s the last time any of the elected Republicans publicly stood up to the traitorous Dhimmicrats on the nation building exercise in Iraq? They got us into the war/nation-building…they should be telling us why it’s important on a DAILY BASIS! Instead, they are abandoning us to the traitors in the Dhimmi party…soon we will be retreating and leaving our allies at the mercy of the lunatics.
The Repubs got voted out because they acted like Democrats.
That’s what the folks in far right wing neverland want everyone to believe and it is of course, like most things in “neverland” not true. The reason was simple and basic … Bush and Iraq. Or Iraq and Bush. Bush = GOP …. GOP = Bush … Therefore bye bye GOP majority.
Bush has done more for the democratic party since FDR! Thanks George!
If you want to spend money – as the Bush administration most assuredly does – you have to do at least one of three things:
(i) Print the money
(ii) Borrow the money
(iii) Tax the money
More facile economic understanding from jihymas.
Or of course, there is the assiduously avoided point (iv) grow the economy, which is what lowering taxes do.
Enjoy your recession.
johnnymozart: I don’t quite understand your point.
“Growing the economy” will not, in and of itself, put any money in the government’s pockets.
Are you saying that growing the economy allows the spent money to be raised through taxation at a lower rate?
Are you saying that growing the economy allows the spent money to be raised through increased borrowing?
Are you saying that growing the economy allows the spent money to be printed?
Incidentally, when I insult somebody, I sign my name. Anything else would be the work of a coward.
How Can the Largest Tax Hike in History . . .
. . . Not be a tax hike? Yesterday, the House passed a new budget which the Heritage Foundation refers to as “a study in fiscal irresponsibility.” Though Democrats, not surprisingly, claim the bill does not “raise taxes,” it does allow the President’…
Feinstein Follies
Except, of course, that the Donks exposed themselves as rapers and pillagers of the taxpayers a long, long time ago, and reiterated it again just the other day….And we knew what we were getting. Which means the people who voted for those despicable…
Bad Monkey..BAD MONKEY!!
JiHymas,
OMG, you really don’t understand. Don’t they teach fractions in school any more?
When the economy is larger, incomes are larger. The amount to which you are applying taxes GOES UP.
Say you earn a round $100,000. You pay (let’s say) a third in taxes. Uncle Sam gets about $33k from you. They like you at work and raise your salary to $150,000. Suppose you are the same tax bracket (I don’t know the tax tables), so you are pay 1/3 of your income in taxes, so now Uncle Sam gets $50k.
You do understand where wealth comes from, don’t you?
ck: I remembered the deficit details incorrectly and was wrong. So you got me there.
On the other hand, you are avoiding the point that a larger economy provides more revenue to the government, and that slowing the economy will reduce that revenue. I should have stuck to pointing out the record tax receipts of the Bush administration.
As for a government surplus, no I do not think the government should have my money instead of me. Are they going to pay me interest? I don’t think so.
***
If anyone is interested, there is a brilliant book called FDR’s Folly, which describes the impact of his economic policies in great detail. Among other things, FDR had an idea that companies should not be permitted to keep their earnings beyond some tiny amount, so he raised taxes–and then US companies didn’t have any money to make capital investments. Guess what. That made it hard to give people jobs.
You will notice that reviewers who dislike the book do not address the facts in it.
Bostonian: If I have read your comments correctly, you believe that we can become infinitely wealthy by cutting taxes to zero.
Sadly, there is some doubt that economic growth varies inversely with tax rates. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2005 a ten percent cut in income tax rates
The net effect on government revenues … well, I’ll let you estimate that. After all, I understand you took fractions in school!
You want lower taxes? There’s an easy solution. DON’T LET THE GOVERNMENT SPEND SO MUCH DAMN MONEY!
No, Hymas,
You definitely read me wrong. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your math skills.
Read it again.
I was discussing the fact that if the economy grows, the government takes in larger amounts of money (because there is more income to tax).
I am fine with the government spending less. I can think of many dozens of things I would cut if I had the chance.
Earlier I said that if tax rates go up, that could slow the economy, but I did not postulate a linear relationship that could be extrapolated in the words you put into my mouth.
Economists are still arguing about that (which you conveniently ignore). My point there was only that taxes do impact behavior and only foolish people think otherwise.
I’m glad you’re on board with cutting spending, though. Maybe you can write to all the Democrats and tell them to get with the program. There is almost no program they don’t want to fund.
Bostonian: I read it again. It said Democrats consistently believe that if they raise TAX RATES, they will raise TAX RECEIPTS.
This is so idiotic. Does the supermarket sell more bread when it raises the price? Hell, no.
People change their behavior in response to changing prices — and that most definitely includes the price of work. (Do you work harder or less hard when your hourly rate goes down?!)
Bush cut tax rates; we all remember that, right? According to Democrat-think, that should be really bad for tax receipts and the deficit. Well, the corporate tax receipts last year at an all-time record high (which the MSM probably ignored).
Which is typical supply-side rhetoric. Can you make yourself a little more clear? Are you claiming any sustainable effect at all on the economy due to the Bush tax cuts? Are you claiming that there will be a sustainable effect on the economy due to the proposed Democrat tax increases (and/or cancellation of planned cuts, whatever)? Are you claiming that the National Debt and annual deficits don’t matter, since the economy is growing?
Are you claiming that when a nation has a very real and unexpected need to spend a LOT of extra money (as it did after 9/11 … we can argue endlessly over how much and what for, but I don’t think anybody disagrees on the basic need) that the proper response is to cut taxes?
Oh – I studied another fraction!
National Debt / GDP (page 119 of document, page 123 of the PDF)