View Single Post
      02-10-2008, 03:10 PM   #166
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

I know a couple of things:
I don't have the answer, you don't, and apparently no one does!

it's a class divisive issue, not good for our Country, we need to focus on the external issues, not engage in internal bickerin...we are in a holding pattern...

as far as the rate for the top say 5%, it has gone up...
but I would venture their income to avg earned ratio has gone up a lot more...

since the bottom 50% or so pay like 10% of the taxes (the bottom 30-35% pay none, they are too poor to pay taxes!, that's messed up)

that means the upper 50% must pay 90%, simple math...and the % will climb with earnings...doesn't every country in the world do this with their income tax? makes me think there may not be a 'better' way...some countries base speeding fines on earnings...

so unless we whack the budget big time:
10% interst on the debt (try getting that at a bank )
20 healthcare, and growing
20 SS, and growing
30 defense
20 EVERYTHING else

plus we are running a deficit...15% of the budget itself!

I was raised by depression era immigrants, without a HS education, and they died wealthy AND happy...simple rule, if you can't afford it, learn to tell YOURSELF no...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltigeur View Post
Absolutely! These are all a matter of opinion. It's interesting to see - and I'll take one of these on - that you state:

"tax cuts for the wealthiest, bad"

While I *emotionally* agree w/ you, as a professional economist I can't agree w/ this statement - much as I desire to! For one: the top 1% (so let's assume this percentile equates to "wealthy") pay more taxes as a % / GDP than was the case in the 1960s for e.g. when Kennedy lowered the top marginal tax rate.

For another: from a macro perspective one can well argue that lower tax rates at the top marginal rates are more stimulative to the economy than an equal % cut at the lower levels. Why? Due to behavior (tax shelters and investment potential).

I'm not a registered Republican so when I weigh in on this it's purely from my macro perspective, not the ideological on this issue. I can PM you a decent review of some tax issues in an op ed.

One last point: the Labor govt (in many ways left of the Dems' platform here) in Australia did the following:
(1) removed fully the dividend tax ("double taxation")
(2) lowered the top marginal rates
(3) lowered corporate tax rates
(4) no estate taxes
(5) lowered cap gains' tax

And the Aussie economy boomed and govt runs a surplus. The conservative govt inherited this mandate - and my nephew is now highly involved in the new Treasury Dept.'s policy there (recently back to Labor rule), is a Labor party voter, and he says they are not considering repealing (1) - (5).

As far as the "bill coming due" goes: As long as we have open markets, discrete property rights, democratic processes, and foreigners can earn a RoC > their CoC, then they will have no problems w/ meeting our capital requirements. It makes too much sense to them. Whether we *want* to sell our assets or take on more debt is another matter... for we do have to pay them their RoC.
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote