Should Mitt release his tax returns?

[franklin]

I am not sure what you say is true because I've read (numbers & perspective) otherwise but maybe you could clarify some things.

Are you saying the highest tax bracket before Reagan was at 90%? I thought that was the highest tax bracket under JFK.

Reagan didn't cut income tax rates across the board? or he increased more taxes than he cut?

I think you're looking at things incident by incident and not in context of the times. I don't recall the exact tax rate just prior to Reagan. The point I was making is that liberals parrot this 90% tax = prosperity line, and you're essentially validating this when you claim Reagan cut taxes from extreme levels. The truth is there was never a 90% effective rate or anywhere near it. Yes, Reagan lowered the tax brackets and simplified them into 4. He also closed loopholes and exemptions that offset the effects of lower rates, and increased SSIDI rates 6 times. He reversed a good chunk of his 1981 tax cuts in 1982, and they hadn't even taken effect yet so there was no tax-cut stimulus from this portion in the first place. He also did this all in a time of supply constraints to spur investment in real production. This sort of thing is not effective in the face of supply gluts and deflationary forces.

I thought I read that the type of government spending that increased under Reagan was entitlement(SS) spending because of the amount of retirees increased.

For this situation, it doesn't matter much to me exactly what and where government spending increased. Government taxed & borrowed & spent money into the economy, which made it stronger, which led households to feel good about prospects which led to a boom in private sector debt.

Was the debt not erased under Clinton/Gingrich as the liberals love to claim, or was is just the projected surplus that never materialized or wasn't used on debt reduction?

Not my strong suit so I really don't know. I speculate that a strong economy and booming private sector picked up the spending percentages that Clinton/Gingrich cut or froze or whatever they did. It's easy to slow spending in one area when a debt bubble is building in another. What ultimately mattered is that Flow of Funds figures marched steadily upward.

 

[Stoked]

If coke, for example, suddenly moved to China and stopped selling Coke in America, there would be plenty of people who open soda companies looking to take their place. This is what the free market is all about.
This notion that we have to basically beg businesses and give into their every demand in order to attract them is just nuts. I guarantee you if a multi billion dollar corporation suddenly says "We're moving to China. We'll no longer be selling our products in the USA," there would LOTS of people licking their chops at the huge opportunity to get filthy rich.

But in your system I see new business owners as less likely to open that new company as there is a forced limit on how much they can grow.

I do not believe we have to bend over but that is a far cry from doing things that can attract businesses here. One option is lower taxes just enough to stay competitive. Increase the general education to provide a more skilled workforce. Many ways to make companies want to be here instead of being forced to be here.

 

[SaltyDawg]

But in your system I see new business owners as less likely to open that new company as there is a forced limit on how much they can grow.

I do not believe we have to bend over but that is a far cry from doing things that can attract businesses here. One option is lower taxes just enough to stay competitive. Increase the general education to provide a more skilled workforce. Many ways to make companies want to be here instead of being forced to be here.

I can't imagine there would be anyone saying, "I worked at Coke for 10 years, I know how they operated. I could open my own soda company to replace Coke and be in stores coast to coast by next month. I imagine I'll make about a billion per year in profit. But dog gone it, if I want to hire Chinese workers I have to pay extra in taxes, so I'm just going to stay broke and unemployed instead."

I don't think it helps our economy at all if we lower taxes on business but allow them all to send all of their jobs overseas. It helps the CEO's pocketbook, sure, but it doesn't do much for our economy.

Also, increasing the education only does so much. I agree that we should be doing that. But that won't be enough. There won't be enough "better" jobs to go around if everyone is educated. And I don't think companies are going to start bringing their customer service and manufacturing jobs back to the USA just because the people here are educated. If they can get the work for $1.00 per hour in India, they will keep sending the jobs over there.

Computer programming is one of the most outsourced professions, and the programmers we have in the USA that are seeing their jobs out5sourced are certainly educated. Most have college degrees and at the very least have certifications.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think you're looking at things incident by incident and not in context of the times. I don't recall the exact tax rate just prior to Reagan. The point I was making is that liberals parrot this 90% tax = prosperity line, and you're essentially validating this when you claim Reagan cut taxes from extreme levels. The truth is there was never a 90% effective rate or anywhere near it. Yes, Reagan lowered the tax brackets and simplified them into 4. He also closed loopholes and exemptions that offset the effects of lower rates, and increased SSIDI rates 6 times. He reversed a good chunk of his 1981 tax cuts in 1982, and they hadn't even taken effect yet so there was no tax-cut stimulus from this portion in the first place. He also did this all in a time of supply constraints to spur investment in real production. This sort of thing is not effective in the face of supply gluts and deflationary forces.

For this situation, it doesn't matter much to me exactly what and where government spending increased. Government taxed & borrowed & spent money into the economy, which made it stronger, which led households to feel good about prospects which led to a boom in private sector debt.

Not my strong suit so I really don't know. I speculate that a strong economy and booming private sector picked up the spending percentages that Clinton/Gingrich cut or froze or whatever they did. It's easy to slow spending in one area when a debt bubble is building in another. What ultimately mattered is that Flow of Funds figures marched steadily upward.

I'm surprised I wasn't aware that was a line liberals parroted, but I believe that was the top tax rate that JFK cut. I never said that Reagan's rate cuts were from extreme levels. They just effected every tax bracket. In fact he increased the amount of "poor" people effectively paying no federal income tax at all.

As for payroll tax rates:

Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.

Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:

For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;

For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and

For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.
On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:

For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;

For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;

For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and

For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17

https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record

The flow of funds figures marched steadily upward during Clinton? The flow of funds from where to where? The flow of money from workers pockets to retiree pockets? The flow of money from the private sector into the public sector? Where the flow started and where it ended matters.

Did you just say the government taxing, borrowing, and spending made the economy stronger by increasing consumer debt?

 

[northeast]

Trying to pass heritage.org off as a reputable source??... might as well slap a Rush bumper sticker on that sucker!

 

[northeast]

no, I can't take my eyes off your avatar.

 

[franklin]

I never said that Reagan's rate cuts were from extreme levels. They just effected every tax bracket. In fact he increased the amount of "poor" people effectively paying no federal income tax at all.

I just looked up that he lowered the top rate from 70% to 50%. I consider 70% pretty extreme.

Reagan also chopped a lot of aid to the poor and replaced it with get to work programs, which is something I'm highly in favor of.

Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.

Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:

For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;

For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and

For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.
On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:

For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;

For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;

For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and

For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17

Placing the blame away from Reagan doesn't change the tax cut fallacy. The rest of that reads as evidence of the growing wealth divide that started under Reagan. Under the tax code, I would expect the top to pay a larger portion of income taxes when they receive a larger portion of the income.

The flow of funds figures marched steadily upward during Clinton? The flow of funds from where to where? The flow of money from workers pockets to retiree pockets? The flow of money from the private sector into the public sector? Where the flow started and where it ended matters.

Flow of funds is a banking term related to accounting for credit creation, investment, & consumption.

Did you just say the government taxing, borrowing, and spending made the economy stronger by increasing consumer debt?

No. I said "Government taxed & borrowed & spent money into the economy, which made it stronger, which led households to feel good about prospects which led to a boom in private sector debt".

It is well known that sentiment plays a huge role in consumption patterns. The stimulating effects of government spending influences citizens to go into debt to consume. We've obviously seen plenty of this the last 3-4 years that would have been absent had the government not intervened. We've also seen the opposite effects as uncertainty hangs fear over our heads.

Let me phrase it as a question: If you thought the economy was going to get worse tomorrow would you run out and buy a new car on credit?

 

[One Brow]

franklin,

Originally Posted by One Brow
..if he regularly allows others to mess with documents that he is personally responsible for, and does not pay attention to how they are altered, I think that is a bad sign for his Presidency.

I am President Obama and I disapprove of this message.

I guess you are saying Obama allows others to mess with stuff that is his personal responsibility. What to you mean, specifically?

 

[leftyjace]

I don't think it matters what anyone calls it. What matters is the end result, which would be a booming economy, low unemployment, and reduced government spending.

Hell ya! Sure worked for North Korea!

 

[SaltyDawg]

Hell ya! Sure worked for North Korea!

Right, North Korea has the same resources and skills as the USA, and I am suggesting the government take ownership of all the businesses like North Korea. It's exactly the same thing. Or, on second thought, maybe it's completely and totally different. Yeah, that.

 

[Stoked]

Right, North Korea has the same resources and skills as the USA, and I am suggesting the government take ownership of all the businesses like North Korea. It's exactly the same thing. Or, on second thought, maybe it's completely and totally different. Yeah, that.

You are not taking ownership but you are dictating what the owners have to do with their own property. At a certain point the difference becomes so little that there is really no difference.

There needs to be a medium between total freedon to do literally anything and being dictated what your every move will be by government. I think your stance is tilted to far toward the total government control side.

 

[SaltyDawg]

You are not taking ownership but you are dictating what the owners have to do with their own property. At a certain point the difference becomes so little that there is really no difference.

There needs to be a medium between total freedon to do literally anything and being dictated what your every move will be by government. I think your stance is tilted to far toward the total government control side.

I would not be dictating what anyone could or couldn't do on their own property. The only restriction I am suggesting is if you hire a bunch of people overseas, then you pay an extra tax.

 

[Stoked]

I would not be dictating what anyone could or couldn't do on their own property. The only restriction I am suggesting is if you hire a bunch of people overseas, then you pay an extra tax.

Thereby penalyzing them for not doing things the way you like. This is a measure of control. In your ends justify the means view on this subject what is the next step if they all ignore your attempts and do it anyways? Stiffer penalties?, Seizure of property? Slippery slope in my opinion.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Thereby penalyzing them for not doing things the way you like. This is a measure of control. In your ends justify the means view on this subject what is the next step if they all ignore your attempts and do it anyways? Stiffer penalties?, Seizure of property? Slippery slope in my opinion.

If they ignore it and do it (hire overseas workers anyways) the next step would be to use the tax money to pay for unemployment payments/food stamps/mortgage assistance/etc for all the people that are currently out of work, and tell all the complainers to shut up about it unless they are going to start hiring Americans.

 

[Stoked]

If they ignore it and do it hire overseas workers anyways the next step would be to use the tax money to pay for unemployment payments/food stamps/mortgage assistance/etc for all the people that are currently out of work, and tell all the complainers to shut up about it unless they are going to start hiring Americans.

Hmm...you are an interesting person and I guess we just will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Hmm...you are an interesting person and I guess we just will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

By the way, what I am suggesting is pretty much what Obama is now campaigning on. I don't know if he'll actually follow through with it or not, or if it would be filibustered or not, but this is now what Obama is saying he wants to do (tax breaks for the companies hiring Americans, tax penalties for the companies that send jobs overseas).

 

[Stoked]

By the way, what I am suggesting is pretty much what Obama is now campaigning on. I don't know if he'll actually follow through with it or not, or if it would be filibustered or not, but this is now what Obama is saying he wants to do (tax breaks for the companies hiring Americans, tax penalties for the companies that send jobs overseas).

Which is why I feel that Romney is the lesser of two evils.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Which is why I feel that Romney is the lesser of two evils.

I'm guessing you'd feel differently if your job was at risk of getting outsourced.

 

[Stoked]

I'm guessing you'd feel differently if your job was at risk of getting outsourced.

I hear about furloughs and firings and not replacing losses every fall at my job. Been there done that. You want guarantees that life will work out for the best and that government will take care of me. Hell no I say. I can take care of myself. I do not need government controling everything I do.

 

[Revolution 9]

Just wondering who Salty, and Stoked have voted for the last 3-4 elections...?