Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Warren Buffett is Wrong on Taxes

Steve Moore in Thursday's WSJ:

"The Oracle of Omaha is at it again. On July 7, Warren Buffett told Bloomberg: "I think the rich have a responsibility to pay higher tax rates." Then he groused that his wealthy friends are "paying lower tax rates than the people who are serving us the food." Mr. Buffett has been voicing this complaint for years, once observing that his personal tax rate of 17.7% is lower than that of his receptionist (30%).

During Monday night's national address, President Obama recited the Buffet line that millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Democrats in Congress routinely cite Mr. Buffett's tax confessions as irrefutable evidence that tax rates on the very rich are too low and the system is unfair. And the system would be unfair, if Mr. Buffett's tax facts were the whole truth. But they aren't.

I don't know the details of Warren Buffet's personal taxes, and he hasn't made them public. But the IRS does provide reliable data on effective tax rates—the overall share of their income that various groups pay in federal income taxes (not including state or local taxes) after accounting for all deductions and exemptions. These are different than marginal tax rates, which are paid on the next dollar of income and now peak at 35% for individuals.

IRS data for 2008, for example, show that households in the top 10% of earners (above about $114,000) paid 19% of their income to the feds (see chart above). Those in the top 1% (above $380,000) paid 23.3%. The top 0.1% of earners, with incomes of $2 million or more, end up paying a slightly lower tax of 22.7%, because they get more of their income from investments (more about this below).

So what about the rest of us? According to IRS data, a median-income household ($35,000) in 2008 paid about 4% of its income in federal income tax."

MP: The chart above shows that the U.S. income tax system is progressive (as it's intended to be) and higher income groups pay taxes at a higher rate on average, as a share of their taxable income. For the bottom 50% of taxpayers with incomes of $33,000 or less, the average tax rate is only 2.6%.

As I have mentioned several times before, if Warren Buffett thinks he should pay higher taxes, he doesn't have to wait for the Bush tax cuts to expire, he can pay higher taxes right now by making a gift to the U.S. Treasury, instructions are here

129 Comments:

At 7/27/2011 10:05 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

How about if you compare the tax rate to the percentage of total income that group earns. The bottom 20% pays low rates, but they only earn 4% of total income.

 
At 7/27/2011 11:12 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Could this chart be re-done, but including federal Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes?

Gee, I think you get a different result--most middle-income and lower wage-earners pay more in FICA taxes than federal income taxes.

 
At 7/28/2011 2:37 AM, Blogger Innovation rules said...

Mr. Buffet gains most of his 'income' on capital gains, which do not attach UI, or SS which by definition he does not need. Of course his tax rates are lower.

Mr. Buffet might help his secretary by mentioning that she should have the option to opt out of these programs as well.

And as an investor, Mr. Buffet would help the government and his secretary far more by repeatedly telling the government that no private insurance company he is associated with would dream of paying SS, or Medicare benefits based solely on a Ponzi scheme of payment dues.

In fact if SS were based on life insurance practices, his secretary would likely be well on her way to living a comfortable retirement, including leaving a healthy nest egg for her loved ones.

The dirty secret is that even 401k plans are so regulated that high ROIs are virtually eliminated.

I am not sure what Mr. Buffet's agenda is, since he most assuredly understands all these things and most importantly, that current government structure is absolutely unsustainable, fraudulent and excruciatingly stupid in the long run.

In fact, as a very informed citizen who purports to care, but who does NOT speak up about the obscenity of government social funding that any Finance 101 major understands, we are left to seriously question Mr. Buffet's agenda. There is no other option.

 
At 7/28/2011 3:00 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"How about if you compare the tax rate to the percentage of total income that group earns. The bottom 20% pays low rates, but they only earn 4% of total income."

And, your point is?

 
At 7/28/2011 7:53 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

bunny-

the result is not that different in terms of % of taxes paid.

the top 10% of taxpayers in the US pay 45-50% of all federal taxes.

even including FICA, the US has the most progressive tax system in the developed world.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-has-most-progressive-tax-system-for.html

 
At 7/28/2011 8:16 AM, Blogger Paul said...

"-most middle-income and lower wage-earners pay more in FICA taxes than federal income taxes."

And they theoretically get those benefits paid back when they retire. Apples and oranges.

 
At 7/28/2011 9:03 AM, Blogger James said...

Please someone reform the tax code. The fact that as a smart person I can't even tell what percentage I pay without paying a $900 accountant is ridiculous.

 
At 7/28/2011 9:09 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

""-most middle-income and lower wage-earners pay more in FICA taxes than federal income taxes."

and then they get paid back more than they put in. the wealthy get back far less than they pay.

for someone who rants against the states that get more in federal funds than they pay in taxes, you sure don;t seem to have a problem with citizens who do the same thing.

how do you think those imbalances occur? it's people getting more benefits than they pay for in poor states. the state situation you lament is just the sum of the individual situation you seem fine with.

you have some of the most astonishingly inconsistent thinking i have ever seen bunny.

i really do wonder about you.

 
At 7/28/2011 9:09 AM, Blogger Jon said...

Classic bait and switch. Buffet is right. He pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Moore just alters Buffet's claim. Buffet pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary. That's false.

But it's not what Buffet said. He's not limiting his claim to income taxes. Why arbitrarily single out the one tax that is progressive and say we're only going to talk about that, not remaining taxes?

As stated Buffet's claim is true because he's talking about taxes overall not specifically income taxes.

 
At 7/28/2011 9:12 AM, Blogger Jon said...

For reference, I blogged about the facts concerning federal taxes here. State taxes are also regressive. See here. I don't think Buffet is even including those.

 
At 7/28/2011 9:39 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"The Koch brothers want to talk about income taxes. Those are progressive, so focusing on them highlights the suffering of the rich. What they don't want to talk about is the payroll tax because that's regressive and highlights the contributions of the poor." -- From Jon's blog

"Why arbitrarily single out the one tax that is progressive and say we're only going to talk about that, not remaining taxes?" -- Jon

Why? Because payroll taxes are returned to those that pay them in the form of future benefits, as has been pointed out. Are you having trouble understanding that?

So, let me get this straight, you concede that the "rich" pay almost all the federal income taxes. This money pays for every function of government outside of the major entitlement programs. The military, Head Start, SCHIP, everything, but still, you're not happy. No, you will not be happy until they are paying for everyone else's retirement and old age health care as well. Where does your sense of entitlement to the fruits of another man's labor come from, and where does your greed end? Entire nations have been reduced to slavery by greedy little "tax the rich" fucks, like you.

 
At 7/28/2011 9:40 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Morganovich,

"..for someone who rants against the states that get more in federal funds than they pay in taxes, you sure don;t seem to have a problem with citizens who do the same thing."

Benji is getting close to the age where he'll be getting those benefits. He claims to be a pure-hearted Milton Friedman style classical liberal, but in truth it all comes down to "what's in it for Benji?"

 
At 7/28/2011 9:43 AM, Blogger joel said...

It's the TOTAL tax rate that matters - including sales tax, real estate tax and all the hundreds of other taxes. I did an extensive analysis a few years ago of someone making $75K vs someone making $75Million and the $75K person pays at least 5% more TOTAL tax and it could be quite a bit more than that depending on the assumptions you make. Every time federal taxes are lowered, there are a bunch of new taxes showing up at the state and local level and it's all those little taxes that are a much larger percentage of total tax for the lower incomes.

 
At 7/28/2011 9:44 AM, Blogger fabian hug said...

You have to refine this analysis in defining what is income and that makes it impossible. Income from capital gains or dividends or rental property are not taxed the same way as earned income. This type of income is more likely to be found amongst the top 10%. Furthermore, corporation owners have legal possibility to defer income for a big part of their earned income through pension and health plans and that also skew the statistics. All in all, instead of asking the "rich" to pay for more taxes, why don't we reduce taxes for and give the "poor" the same opportunities. Why can a business owner make pension provisions big enough to guarantee a $ 500K income at retirement and the bottom bloke can only put $ 4,000 in his/her 401K?

 
At 7/28/2011 9:46 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Che,

Ha! Great stuff.

 
At 7/28/2011 9:50 AM, Blogger Paul said...

" Every time federal taxes are lowered, there are a bunch of new taxes showing up at the state and local level and it's all those little taxes that are a much larger percentage of total tax for the lower incomes."

Huh? I must be missing something, where is the linkage?

 
At 7/28/2011 9:59 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"Huh? I must be missing something, where is the linkage?"

i'm guessing here, but what i think he means is that every time the feds cut taxes, it leaves less aid to the states. lots of federal programs require state spending.

if they pay less, the states have to pay more.

 
At 7/28/2011 10:00 AM, Blogger Jon said...

Che, you just aren't reading me properly. It's not about what the rich should pay. It's about what they actually pay. Should the poor pay a higher proportion because they get a higher proportion back when it comes to Social Security? Make the case if you like. We're not talking about that. We're talking about Buffet's claim that he pays less of his income in taxes than does his secretary. The claim is true. If you think that's the way it should be, that's fine. But don't lie about it and say he pays a higher proportion overall than his secretary. He doesn't.

 
At 7/28/2011 10:06 AM, Blogger Paul said...

MOrganovich,

"i'm guessing here, but what i think he means is that every time the feds cut taxes, it leaves less aid to the states. lots of federal programs require state spending."

All that tells me is we need less federal programs. We need less aid to the states in the first place. What sense does it make for the citizen to send their tax dollars on an round-trip, high federal overhead, journey?

 
At 7/28/2011 10:12 AM, Blogger Jon said...

For the record if I had my way I'd like to see tax cuts in the long term. We could do it if we had democratic government.

So for instance (to open up a huge can of worms) single payer health care would eliminate our deficit with no tax increases. Every other industrialized country has something like that. They pay half what we do and have better outcomes. So I'd do that before raising Buffet's taxes.

Then I'd end our wars that few even know why we are fighting. Afghanistan and Libya don't even make sense to conservatives I know. End those, end corporate welfare, bring the troops there and in Korea, Germany, Italy, Japan and Great Britain home. End military aid to Israel (and Egypt, which is really another form of aid to Israel). End corporate tax loopholes. There's a huge surplus right there. If anything we could cut taxes.

Unfortunately since we don't have democratic government, but corporate government, the only options available are to deprive the elderly of Social Security and Medicare or raise taxes, and with those options alone I'd raise taxes back to the Clinton era levels, which are low historically. We must choose between crappy options because our government doesn't permit options that the public prefers.

 
At 7/28/2011 10:22 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

hydra:

and the top 10% pays 70% income tax on 45% of income.

the top 1% pays more than the entire bottom 90%.

the key issue here is that a democracy in which essentially only 25% of people pay income taxes rapidly disintegrates into big government fiscal irresponsibility.

every time a new spending measure comes up, a majority knows that they will not have to pay for it.

they vote themselves goodies from someone else's pocket.

do this enough, and it kills the goose that has been laying the golden eggs. government crowds out the private sector, deficits become unsustainable, and taxes hurt investment and thus growth.

people are very good at figuring out how to get value for their own money, but if you let me spend yours (or if i can force you to spend it for me at the ballot box), i don't need any kind of ROI. anything at all i get is a benefit.

 
At 7/28/2011 10:25 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

jon, joel and fabian -

Why not go out there and start a business of your own? Come on, show us all just how easy it is. Come up with an idea and a plan. Put up everything that you have - your home, your savings, everything. Work 80 to 100 hours a week for years on end with no guarantee of getting paid. Navigate the labyrinth of laws and regulations that people who have never run a business or created anything have put in your way. Make sure that your employees get paid, even when your business is losing money. It's easy, right? And if you are fortunate enough to survive and prosper, you can listen to lectures from little leftist fucks about how evil you are and how you do not pay your "fair share".

Perhaps that's why you're starting to see things like THIS.

First, they come for the businessmen:

Nearly 45 years ago philosopher Ayn Rand identified businessmen, including those who work in finance, as the distinguished symbols of a free and prosperous society. “All the other social groups — workers, farmers, professional men, scientists, soldiers — exist under dictatorships, even though they exist in chains, in terror, in misery, and in progressive self-destruction. But there is no such group as businessmen under a dictatorship. Their place is taken by armed thugs: by bureaucrats and commissars.”

SmartMoney

 
At 7/28/2011 10:47 AM, Blogger Jon said...

Morganovich and Che my objection to what you say is that what you offer is plausible sounding thought experiments that make good sense in your mind. But when we look at the real world we find that those thought experiments don't correspond to reality.

One might think that the era that involved taxes skewed even more to the rich (50's, 60's, and 70's) corresponded with very low economic growth. One might think that government intervention in the economy in the US, Britain, Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Germany has lead to extreme poverty in those regions.

But when we look at the world we find that in the US the 50's, 60's and 70's are now regarded as the golden age of economic development. We find that the interventionist governments had wonderful economic performance and poor countries that pursue free markets stagnate or decline. Ayn Rand has visions of people like John Galt letting the lazy rot in their own misery. But in the real world it doesn't work that way.

 
At 7/28/2011 10:48 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"... single payer health care would eliminate our deficit with no tax increases." -- Jon

Medicare is a huge, single-payer, government-run program. It ought to provide the perfect environment for experimentation.

Medicare has a $30+ trillion dollar unfunded liability.

Medicare made more than $40 billion in improper payments last year.

Last year, Medicare fraud cost taxpayers more than all the profits of the private insurance companies - combined.

And it has a higher medical claim rejection rate than private insurance.

The list could go on and on. Single payer will not eliminate our deficit, it will make it worse.

 
At 7/28/2011 10:49 AM, Blogger eliseo martinez said...

Is there a study to which I may be referred by a reader which tries to prove that money not taxed from the "filthy rich" goes into job creative investments, and not into $100 million Picassos? I have a hunch that the GOP's staunch defense of the Bush tax extension is nothing but payback for all the IOU's in the hands of the big time political contributors.

 
At 7/28/2011 10:54 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

che-

right on.

i have founded 5 companies and helped the founding of maybe 10 more.

there is nothing more irritating that putting your whole life savings on the line and working like a rented mule while creating value and jobs only to be characterized as some sort of evil oppressor and profiteer.

it's interesting how few entrepreneurs are leftists and how few leftists ever start companies.

ps.

jon-

single payor care gets NOTHING like our results and offers nothing like our services.

cancer survival rates are lower. premature baby survival is MUCH lower. they don;t even count preemies in birth stats. this inflates their numbers and significantly increases avg life expectancy as well.

line are long.

services are limited. try getting a hip replacement in the UK.

you have this fantasy version of how they work based on lies spread as leftist talking points.

oh, and they are all failing due to costs.

the best system in terms of price/effectiveness is singapore. it's the most free market health care in the world. you are required to save money in an HSA. but you spend it. everyhting is cash pay.

this keeps prices low and decisions rational.

there is "disaster" insurance for major expenses, but the deductible is somehting like $10k.

single payor is just a way to get rationing and sub standard care.

ever seen a UHS facility? you'd think your were in the third world.

 
At 7/28/2011 11:07 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

"the best system in terms of price/effectiveness is singapore. it's the most free market health care in the world. you are required to save money in an HSA. but you spend it. everyhting is cash pay."

more delusional blather.

Singapore is a totally-govt-dominated system with a MANDATORY 33% payroll tax and strict caps and limits on what private providers can charge.

Mr. Morg is delusional, ignorant and dishonest in continuing to portray the govt-directed health care system in Singapore as "free market".

Ask Morg if he advocates Singapores 33% payroll tax and govt restriction on health care pricing - in this country.

re: FICA and SS. Not only do most people pay MORE in FICA than SS but we take in about 1.1 trillion TOTAL in income taxes and we spend almost a trillion on the Military, two wars and homeland security.

If we apply the "progressive" test to the 14 trillion debt - who should pay for it?

We owe that debt... how will we pay for it if not through taxes?

You'll also find that the lower income folks are the ones who provide the manpower for the military over there, in part, because it provides health care not only for the soldier but his/her family back home.

It takes 4 support employees - military and civilian to support each deployed soldier.

Right now, the Chinese are paying for those deployments and we owe them the money.

So.. this should not be about taxing the rich (I agree) but it should be about paying our honest debts - which we refuse to do and spend our time blathering on about Warren Buffet, etc, et al.

Silly me.. I thought Conservatives were fiscal conservatives and advocated not having debt.... but here we are with massive debt and none of them with a plan to pay it off.

tsk tsk.

 
At 7/28/2011 11:08 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

... my objection to what you say is that what you offer is plausible sounding thought experiments that make good sense in your mind. But when we look at the real world we find that those thought experiments don't correspond to reality. --Jon

Your ignorance of the facts is not proof that others have lost their grip on reality.

One might think that the era that involved taxes skewed even more to the rich (50's, 60's, and 70's) corresponded with very low economic growth. -- Jon

After accounting for the myriad of tax shelters and other special favors written into the tax code, how much did the federal government actually collect during that era? Do you know?

... in the US the 50's, 60's and 70's are now regarded as the golden age of economic development. -- Jon

First, the 70's economy suffered from high inflation and stagnation. So, how much of the economic boom during the 50's and 60's was the result of our major competitors economies having been destroyed during WWII? Do you know?

As for you're "managed economic prosperity", take a look at THIS. THIS. And THIS

 
At 7/28/2011 11:14 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Warren Buffoon is an incredible hyporcite.

For his entire career he's had an army of tax lawyers and CPAs employed in the act of reducing his taxes to the bare minimum.

He "saves" Goldman by negotiating a sweet deal and then pushing for government to give them a bailout. In other words, he uses his significant clout with politicians to get them to transfer money out of the pockets of taxpayers into his pocket.

Of course he doesn't think you're paying enough in taxes. He doesn't feel like enough of our money has been transferred to him.

What a &%$#@!!

 
At 7/28/2011 11:15 AM, Blogger eliseo martinez said...

Morganovich 10:A.M. Right on. People like you, who create jobs, do deserve tax breaks. Corporate taxes should be made competitive with the rest of the world"s, etc. I have always been a conservative and my financial future is secure; I don't need or want handouts at the expense of taxpayers. I just want to see factual evidence, not anecdotal, of the detrimental effect on our Gross National Product, if there is any, of discontinuing the Bush tax policies. Mr. Buffett apparently feels that cost cutting measures without increasing revenues will not be enough to balance the budget within a reasonable period of time. Since this is the one bone of contention between the parties in Congress, I think someone should present historical evidence to prove his point.

 
At 7/28/2011 11:21 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

You'll also find that the lower income folks are the ones who provide the manpower for the military over there ..." -- Larry G

Everything that you think you know, is a lie.

"Every income category above $40,000 per year is overrepresented in the active-duty enlisted force, while every income category below $40,000 a year is underrepresented. Low-income families are significantly underrepresented in the military. U.S. military enlistees disproportionately come from upper-middle-class families."

Center for Data Analysis

Why don't you extract your head from Michael Moore's ass and do your own thinking for a change?

 
At 7/28/2011 11:24 AM, Blogger Paul said...

"But when we look at the world we find that in the US the 50's, 60's and 70's are now regarded as the golden age of economic development."

I read this and I think of recent comments by 2 highly successful entrepreneurs:


"It was a lot easier for me to start my business 30 years ago than it is for an entrepreneur starting out today to do the same thing,
~Whole Foods CEO John Mackey


"Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today."
~Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus

 
At 7/28/2011 11:27 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Doesn't Buffet just take advantage of all that is available just like the (*)^*%&% Koch brothers?

Buffet takes advantage but at least is honest enough to say they are wrong.

It's sorta like saying we have a 14 trillion dollar debt and even though we take deductions on our taxes, we still think that ALL of us have a responsibility to pay that debt.

Buffet thinks we need to pay that debt.

 
At 7/28/2011 11:27 AM, Blogger Eleanor said...

Time for a "speculation tax". Any financial asset bought & sold in 12 months pays 90% tax on the difference.
This will push capital back into the real economy, where increases take several years to show up.

 
At 7/28/2011 11:29 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Okay, let's cut federal income taxes.

About 70 percent of federal income taxes are eaten up by Department of defense, VA, Homeland Security, USDA, Interior and debt.

See employment by agency.

Department of Defense 3,000,000
Veterans Affairs 275,000
Homeland Security 250,000
Treasury 115,000
Justice 112,000
Energy 109,000
USDA 109,000
Interior 71,000

Labor 17,000
HUD 10,000
Education 4,487

Paul, Che, Morgan--you say it is not about FICA taxes. Fine.

Where should we cut these federal agencies, so we can cut federal income taxes?

 
At 7/28/2011 11:33 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Mr. Buffett apparently feels that cost cutting measures without increasing revenues will not be enough to balance the budget within a reasonable period of time. Since this is the one bone of contention between the parties in Congress, I think someone should present historical evidence to prove his point. -- eliseo martinez

Perhaps Mr. Buffet should provide the historical evidence to prove his own point. You talk about increasing revenues but what Buffet and the Democrats are talking about is increasing tax rates. Increasing tax rates doesn't guarantee increased revenue since revenue is, in part, a function of economic growth. More economic growth means higher incomes, more jobs and more taxpayers. Revenues actually increased following the tax rate reductions of the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush II administrations.

 
At 7/28/2011 11:33 AM, Blogger joel said...

i have 3 businesses going and have been an employer for over 30 years so i do know what it takes. i'm also one of those people who i think should pay more taxes. there is a reason that there are a lot of people doing well who think they should pay more taxes - the economy will work better if there are good social structures like education and infrastructure which aren't paid for by racking up debt. some of us people really aren't as stupid as you might imagine.

 
At 7/28/2011 11:39 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Time for a "speculation tax". Any financial asset bought & sold in 12 months pays 90% tax on the difference. This will push capital back into the real economy, where increases take several years to show up. -- Eleanor

Highly doubtful. One thing that it would surely do, is to destroy liquidity in the financial markets making capital allocation almost impossible.

 
At 7/28/2011 11:47 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

i'm also one of those people who i think should pay more taxes. there is a reason that there are a lot of people doing well who think they should pay more taxes - the economy will work better if there are good social structures like education and infrastructure which aren't paid for by racking up debt. -- joel

As Dr. Perry points out, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from paying more taxes. What you really want is for others to have to pay more taxes as well. The U.S. currently spends more on education than any other country in the world without getting anything near the best results. If you are concerned about education, perhaps reform is the answer and not more money. As for infrastructure, the trillion dollar "stimulus" bill sold to the public by Obama and the Democrats as funding "shovel ready" infrastructure projects allocated just 6 percent of it's total to that purpose. Why should we trust that they will do better if given more money now?

 
At 7/28/2011 11:51 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"Where should we cut these federal agencies, so we can cut federal income taxes?"

First, maybe I missed it, but I dont see anyone advocating reducing revenue(as opposed to tax reform) at this time.

Second, I am all for raising taxes on the approximately 50% of the American public who aren't paying any net income taxes. Let everyone have some "skin in the game" as your boyfriend likes to say.

Third, all of the deaprtments should be cut to a varying degree. 5 or 6 of the departments should be wiped out. Did you really think that was a hard question, Benji? How did you arrive at your narcissistic foolishness that only you are a pure-hearted, socialist health care supporting, free market disciple... while the rest of us are a bunch of poseurs?

Fourth, you're an idiot.

 
At 7/28/2011 11:56 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Joel,

Go to Blockbuster and rent Waiting for Superman and then decide if you think the problem with education is lack of funding. You will be blown away.

 
At 7/28/2011 12:04 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Paul-

We are running huge federal deficits.

You have to suggest some meaningful cuts in federal outlays financed by federal income taxes.

You dodge the question, as does Morgan and Che.

Why?

Because it is obvious--we can't make a dent in federal agency outlays without whacking Defense, Homeland Security, the VA, Interior and the USDA.

We have to cut where the big spending is.

Now, you are calling for even more taxes! You want to tax more heavily the bottom half.

Now we have the GOP calling for higher taxes, as long as they fall on the bottom half?

So, the GOP solution is higher taxes, and no agency cuts.

Wow.

GOP nihilists have turned the R-Party into the Gong Show.

Let's see--leave federal spending alone, and raise taxes on poor people.

Yeah, baby, and the Bush-love-call: "deficits don;t matter."

 
At 7/28/2011 12:05 PM, Blogger Rich B said...

Cato has some good suggestions about where you can cut the Federal budget here.

 
At 7/28/2011 12:18 PM, Blogger joel said...

paul,

i'll have to check out 'waiting for superman'. i received an excellent education in the 50's and 60's but in todays 'teaching towards the test' approach from bush i'd probably drop out. yes we definitively have poor teaching approaches now and we are falling rapidly against other countries. did you ever wonder why scandanavian countries have much higher taxes and almost no one complains? they do things way differently than we do here. they are far ahead of us in alternative energy, education, health care and just about everything except military. our military budget exceeds the military budgets of all other countries combined - think that might be a symptom of the problem?

 
At 7/28/2011 12:21 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"You dodge the question, as does Morgan and Che."

No, I didn't, nitwit. Go read my answer again. And Morgan and Che haven't even responded to your gibberish, let alone dodge anything.

"Now, you are calling for even more taxes! You want to tax more heavily the bottom half."

Yep, let them pay at least some income taxes. They will continue to vote for more government spending, and your socialist boyfriend, as long as they know somebody else will pay for the booty.

 
At 7/28/2011 12:42 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Just a few things:

Paul, you should watch Waiting For Superman and then ask yourself how the govt could be so incredibly bad at spending the huge amount of money (#2 in the world per capita I believe) and get such unbelievably bad outcomes. That doesn't make me want to give them more.
You may want to consider how inefficient school districts (and the whole idea behind them) are and why the schools on the local level are set up to fail by district taxing.

Those of you who have started a small business know, as a sole proprietor, I paid 41% up to my first $107,000....f u if you want more of my money...Yes, my money. That first $107,000 was a long time coming.

My sister actually quit her job because of the tax bracket they were in. Her husband makes a ton, and the way they figured her pay and the way they tax bonus money, she was actually paying around 50%...I realize that doesn't sound right, but it was.
You may say, 'boo-hoo' for the rich folks...but that's not the point. The point is: she was the person the company wanted for the job, due to the taxes, they got somebody of lesser quality in an important position.

Anybody wonder if The Oracle gave raises to the folks at Star Furniture when he bought it....he needs to make sure that all of his employees are on the 'paying side' of the tax code....oh, wait, that would mess up his stock prices and screw up the income he pays his 17% on.

 
At 7/28/2011 1:03 PM, Blogger Free2Choose said...

"As Dr. Perry points out, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from paying more taxes. What you really want is for others to have to pay more taxes as well."

Che, you are on fire today, my brother. I love it! This is what gets me about those on the left. They are all about being generous with everyone else's money. But I've never seen or heard any one of them respond when someone reminds them that they don't need for govt. to mandate higher taxes. If they indeed feel that their "fair share" is more than they are required to pay, nothing prevents them from writing a bigger check to the US Treasury right now. After all, if they have "tens of thousands of dollars just laying around that they don't need," what better way to dispose of it?

 
At 7/28/2011 1:15 PM, Blogger Darkstarsky said...

Paul,

i have heard this stated many times:

"I am all for raising taxes on the approximately 50% of the American public who aren't paying any net income taxes. Let everyone have some "skin in the game" as your boyfriend likes to say. "

So help me understand the demographics of this 50% of the American Public?

Does this 50% include children under 18? Does this include retires (who have already worked 40-50 years of their lives)? Does this include homemakers (family's with one income and one parent attending to the family)? Does this include folks in college? Does this include the super rich that dont have to ever work again in their lives (as well as their children).

Example...in my family, I am the sole bread earner...my wife is a home make tending to our two boys (one 6 the other 4.5) with the youngest having Cerebral palsy). So does this mean that my family of 4 only 25% of of my family is paying federal taxes as this would be a true statement.

so please elaborate on this "50% of the American Public aren't paying any net income taxes"?

 
At 7/28/2011 1:26 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

... ever wonder why scandanavian countries have much higher taxes and almost no one complains? they do things way differently than we do here. they are far ahead of us in alternative energy, education, health care and just about everything except military. our military budget exceeds the military budgets of all other countries combined - think that might be a symptom of the problem? -- joel

No one complains? But, heh, unlike the "working man's paradise" 90 miles off the coast of Florida we make no effort to prevent anyone from exercising their God given right to choose where to live - have a happy life in Scandinavia.

As for our military, ever wonder why it's been nearly a century since the last World War? Why democracy has been ascendant in the world? Why international trade moves virtually unmolested on the world's oceans? Why countries like North Korea, Myanmar and Venezuela haven't invaded their neighbors? Oh, our military budget is a symptom of something alright. It's a symptom of socialist European countries, like those in Scandinavia, not pulling their weight in the world and leaving the defense of their freedom to others.

We spend more money on welfare and transfer payments than we do on the military while millions of people storm our borders and find good paying jobs - think that might be a symptom of the problem? When some Americans are being paid to sit on their assess producing absolutely nothing, while other Americans are risking their lives on your behalf - and all you can do is bitch about the ones risking their lives - well, that's certainly a symptom of the problem.

 
At 7/28/2011 1:28 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Paul-

You have turned yellow on the question:
What agencies do we cut, to reduce outlays by 40 percent (the amount we are borrowing now).

I say it out loud: We have to cut outlays for Defense, Homeland Security, the VA (privatize it), eliminate the USDA, wipe out HUD, wipe out Education, and wipe out parts of Interior. Sell BLM grazing lands to highest bidder.

You are cowardly, in that you call for federal cuts, but then fail to identify enough cuts to make any difference in outlays.

They serve yellowtail in sushi bars. Better hide your rear end, if you ever visit Japan.

 
At 7/28/2011 1:30 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Darkstarsky,

I meant to say "wage earners." Sorry for the sloppy language.

 
At 7/28/2011 1:32 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Rich B-

Tha is an excellent link.

BTW, CATO is one of the few "right-wing" organizations to not fall prey to partisan politics, and end up as catamites for plutocrats (like our current day GOP).

CATO plays it pretty straight, and I admire their fortitude. Few "conservative" organizations have the guts to call for defense cuts, and that money is channeled into Congressional districts and the gang of grifters attached thereto.

 
At 7/28/2011 1:38 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

... please elaborate on this "50% of the American Public aren't paying any net income taxes"?

No problem.

Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.

A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need.

"As the number [of nonpayers] becomes larger, we have to question whether we'll make good decisions about how to allocate resources," economist George Zodrow, a professor at Rice University. "Most people don't understand how skewed the tax distribution is."

CNNMoney

 
At 7/28/2011 1:48 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Darkstarsky,

I agree with Paul and this is how I'd put it (very simply):

You may or may not be paying any federal tax, but those who are working and are not paying fed tax should be paying something. I don't care how small the amount, it should be linked to each income tax hike and break....if you're a taker of assistance, that number should also reflect every tax increase or decrease. As it stands, we have a large number of earners who also vote...and have nothing to lose by raising taxes on me.
If we're all in this together, then we should all be in it together.

As it stands, when people vote based on tax issues, you don't have to be wealthy at all to suffer tyranny of the majority.

 
At 7/28/2011 1:51 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

The jobs created and saved by the economic stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed on Feb. 17, 2009 cost at a minimum an average of $228,055 each, according to data released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

CNSNews

Rich bastards!

 
At 7/28/2011 1:53 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji the Brave,

"You are cowardly, in that you call for federal cuts, but then fail to identify enough cuts to make any difference in outlays."

I love how you define bravery, as if answering one of you jackass questions takes any balls. What kind of pants-pissing world do you live in? I didn't itemize your homework question, that's correct. I said we should eliminate several departments and trim the rest to various degrees. How does that not make "any difference" in federal outlays, moron? I can only gather you imagined I "ducked" your Moment of Truth question because I don't want to cut the military in the reckless way you do.

Brave Benji!!

 
At 7/28/2011 2:05 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Time for a "speculation tax". Any financial asset bought & sold in 12 months pays 90% tax on the difference.
This will push capital back into the real economy, where increases take several years to show up.


I'm so sick of unbelievable morons like you.

Time for you to at least try to get a frickin' clue.

Who the hell do you think will provide you liquidity when you have to sell one of your assets to pay for your new coat? It's the short term traders you don't understand but hate anyway that compete with each other to trade with you by offering just above and bidding just below fair value. They make money on the spread - which is tiny, thanks to competition. If you tax away that tiny (and not risk-free, I might add) spread, then nobody will be in that business.

So, when you go to sell the stocks in your portfolio, the "short term traders" won't be there and you'll pay a massive transactions cost to buy and sell in your little portfolio. You may give up all your gains for the entire year to transact.

With no liquidity, not only will transactions costs be higher, but so will volatility. That means that the cost of capital for firms will be higher and fewer projects will be economic. THAT, in turn, means you'll probably soon find yourself unemployed.

Your dumb blathering will lead to such an economic disaster that you'll be wailing for another, likely even MORE idiotic "fix".

It's morons like you who, rooted only in your extreme ignorance, push and push to screw with stuff they don't understand but are certain they don't like until regulation and taxes destroy every opportunity for people to be productive.

 
At 7/28/2011 2:06 PM, OpenID Sprewell said...

joel, you think education is a big problem and that the scandinavians are way ahead of us. Well, perhaps that means we should emulate the Swedish school voucher system, after all they're "far ahead of us?" So I ask you, are you for against instituting school vouchers, ie actually doing something to reform education?

 
At 7/28/2011 2:06 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

My sister actually quit her job because of the tax bracket they were in. -- Mike

Unfortunately, she's not alone:

Given a choice between a part-time or easy job paying $60,000 and a demanding, stress-ridden job paying $120,000, Lederman would be wise to take the former. In the tougher job she would be contributing twice as much to the economy. But she wouldn't be doing herself much good. It would make more sense to take it easy and spend more time with her high school senior daughter, Casey.

How did a middle-class single mom wind up with a 79% marginal tax rate? At $120,000 she would pay $16,500 a year more in federal and state taxes, wouldn't qualify for the five-year $12,000-a-year cut in her mortgage payments she's applying for and would be eligible for $19,000 a year less in need-based college financial aid.

For decades there has been debate about how to help the poor without discouraging work, saving or marriage. Yet with almost no notice just such disincentives have crept up the income ladder, observes economist C. Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official and expert on the taxation of families.

Forbes

The left is busy creating a society that discourages work and personal initiative. They've created so many disincentives that they've lost track of them all.

 
At 7/28/2011 2:14 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Che,
And to add to that, as far as I know, the company that she worked for promoted a guy at slightly lower pay and eliminated/restructured his former position.
In this case, the tax bracket problem actually lowered revenue for at least 2 tax paying jobs.

 
At 7/28/2011 2:18 PM, OpenID Sprewell said...

I'll note that Denmark has also long had a large school voucher system, so that makes 2 out of the 3 scandinavian countries embracing vouchers. And what do we see when one state, Indiana, tries to bring them here? Teachers sue under a bullshit excuse that some of it might go to religious schools. Right, like the real reason isn't that they fear the competition.

 
At 7/28/2011 3:01 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"The jobs created and saved by the economic stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed on Feb. 17, 2009 cost at a minimum an average of $228,055 each, according to data released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)."

And even that requires believing the baseless claim that 3.6 million jobs were "created or saved". At the lower end of the CBO estimate, 1.4 million jobs "created or saved", each job cost $586k.

 
At 7/28/2011 3:04 PM, Blogger EPIT said...

Republican, Democrat. The new religions. *rueful shake of head*

I don't think it will be long before we start seeing news stories popping up about groups of democrats or republicans violently attacking groups or individuals of the other.

The programs that came out of the New Deal should be cut as they undermine personal responsibility and create a plethora of moral hazard for the ruling elite.

The US should also get out of the business of policing the world, as that also undermines personal responsibility and creates a plethora of moral hazard for the ruling elite.

You know that less than 100 years ago no one paid any income, FICA, or SS taxes? You want a focus for your anger, take a close look at the Federal Reserve. Those that are members of that system are those that we all truly serve involunarily. That's the greatest crime of the century. This other crap is just the smoke and mirrors used to keep everyone from looking at the men behind the curtain.

Otherwise, I completely agree with Che and company. Governments are instituted among societies; societies are not instituted by governments. While I also yearn for the proverbial mother strings, too, no one owes me a damn thing and it's me, and me alone, who is responsible for all aspects of my life, fair or otherwise.

You want more tax revenue, by all means, contribute to your heart's content. Just review the theory behind the Laffer Curve.

 
At 7/28/2011 3:14 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Methinks,

"I'm so sick of unbelievable morons like you.

Time for you to at least try to get a frickin' clue.
"

Why do you beat around the bush like that? Just come right out & say what you really mean. :-)

If I had to guess, I'd say the answer would be something like this:

"I know that speculators are evil, because a "Collectivists R Us" blog commentator said so. They didn't mention all that stuff you talked about, so it must not be relevant."

 
At 7/28/2011 3:22 PM, OpenID Sprewell said...

Hmm, in googling for vouchers, I stumbled across this fascinating post describing the results of the Swedish voucher system. I completely agree with the author that opening private schools but forcing the outmoded public school curricula on them is not going to accomplish much.

 
At 7/28/2011 3:58 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Ron H.,

I was holding back.

There is nothing more irritating than the moronic spouting of total idiots who haven't a whiff of a clue how anything works, but they're absolutely sure they know exactly how to make it work better.

Because of creatures like this, we now have Dudd-Frank and an SEC out of control. It's hurting imbeciles like this Eleanor, but that doesn't stop her from crying out for more punishment and then wailing because it hurts.

I have reach my limit for unmitigated stupidity.

 
At 7/28/2011 6:40 PM, Blogger patriotted001 said...

This is all so much blather. The fact is, when the government takes my private labor in the form of taxes, it is committing the immoral act of theft. Other than those functions delineated in our constitution, the government has NO right to my labor.

Stop arguing about "fairness", it's a distraction. The government has made us (at least those of us in the top 50% of income) slaves to their redistributionist crimes.

 
At 7/28/2011 7:29 PM, Blogger Socialist Steve said...

Your right-wing analysis is comical. If you have a lower income the standard deduction shelters more of your income, thus you are paying taxes on less of your income. Also, warned Buffett makes his money through capital gains taxed at 15% not income taxed at 35%. Also you not counting regressive taxes like FICA and state sales taxes. The truth is the wealthy are paying a smaller percentage of their wealth to taxes than at any time in history.

 
At 7/28/2011 8:11 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

SS,

Anytime in history? Have you any idea when the 16th Amendment was passed? Do you think history began with the advent of the 90% tax bracket (which nobody paid)? Do you think that because someone is harder working, more talented and less lazy than you achieves more than you that you have a right to the product of their labour?

Of course you do. You're a self-described idiot...I mean socialist. You socialists believe that you have the right to use other men for your purposes. In other words, you believe in Slavery, oppression and tyranny - because that's the only way to run all of your socialist programs (I know, honey. I'm for the USSR). And you're all far too stupid to understand that this is what you're advocating. A pox on you and your offspring.

 
At 7/29/2011 12:30 PM, Blogger Mike said...

It seems Socialist Steve has a problem with reading comprehension.... if you read before you comment, you'd see all that information has already been discussed in one way or another.

This is typical behavior for those stupid enough to publicly identify themselves as a believer in perpetually debunked philosophy.

 
At 7/29/2011 2:42 PM, Blogger misterjosh said...

Dr. Perry - Just a suggestion - you might want to address payroll taxes up front.

Without determining whether payroll taxes are part of a "pension plan" or just regular taxes, it's useless to have a serious discussion regarding the portions that various income groups pay in taxes.

Also, please be careful in your use of the term "earned" when talking about income. Some regard capital gains as "unearned" income, and so I don't know if you're excluding that kind of income from the present discussion.

In Josh's perfect world, there is no BS payroll tax, no corporate taxes, and no capital gains taxes. All income is treated the same & taxed when it is received by a person.

 
At 7/29/2011 3:22 PM, Blogger Thomas said...

Warren Buffett deserves our respect, especially if he voluntarily,donates his fortune to the government. However, he has NOT done that. PUT UP or SHUT UP, WARREN!

 
At 7/29/2011 3:35 PM, Blogger me said...

The clock is ticking.
The ultra-rich are priviledged and therefore will lose the most when the SHTF. It behooves them to fix this now before disaster strikes.
The filthy-rich should get together and figure out how much to pay to avert the coming catastrophy caused by the dollar losing all its value.

 
At 7/29/2011 4:54 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

center for data analysis?

ha ha ha...

yet another right wing group spewing propaganda and lies?

ha ha ha

do you have a problem with REAL DATA?

is that why you suck on propaganda?

 
At 7/29/2011 8:32 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"center for data analysis?

ha ha ha...

yet another right wing group spewing propaganda and lies?

ha ha ha
"

Great technique: If you have no clue how to refute the data, ridicule the source. Shoot the messenger.

As I recall, you used data from the Heritage Foundation yourself in the past. Is it these particular charts you think are funny, or is it the right wing blatherbutt site you use yourself that's a problem?

"do you have a problem with REAL DATA?"

And, what real data might that be, Larry? Do you have something different?

Che is right.

Pull something out of M. Moore's ass while you're up there. I'm sure he has something.

Do you realize your comment contained no actual information?

You are such a pathetic clown.

 
At 7/29/2011 8:54 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Also, please be careful in your use of the term "earned" when talking about income. Some regard capital gains as "unearned" income, and so I don't know if you're excluding that kind of income from the present discussion.

"Some" people's complete lack of understanding of what capital gains are doesn't impose a burden on Mark Perry to cater to their ignorance.

When capital is risked, the gains on it are certainly earned. They are as earned as the secretary's income and the road worker's pay.

Don't allow the IRS' accounting categories muddle the economic reality for you. You'll be much better off than those "some" people if you don't.

 
At 7/29/2011 8:59 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Me,

Honey, the wealthy are smart enough to earn it and they're smart enough to protect it from the claws of the politicians.

It's the "middle class" saps and "the poor" the politicians pimp as a pretext for doing things to line their own pockets that will suffer. Unfortunately, instead of taking care of things for themselves, they're always looking to politicians to solve each of their personal crises. It'll bite them in the behind in the end, but it won't harm the wealthy much.

 
At 7/29/2011 9:31 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

The "center for data analysis" does not collect or source data - they use data generated by others usually.

Most credible organizations cite their sources and/or show how they got their data.

In addition - using income as a determinate is questionable if you are talking about people who are already in the service.

I ask this. How many people with a family, and an income of 40-50K a year - with health benefits would walk away from that to join the armed services?

It seems illogical to me but if there is CREDIBLE data, let's see it.

SOME.. of the data the Heritage folks use IS credible but other that they do is made up essentially and you can usually tell by looking at their data sources.

the problem that we have here is that many people are not content with using real data and they gravitate...quite willingly towards propaganda because it suits their personal philosophy.

I point out that that is dishonest and lacks in scruples.

I am looking for the facts, for the truth not a crutch for my own personal philosophy.

If the facts - contradict my views, I am more than happy to change.

But I have little regard for those who search for "facts" to "fit" their own views.

that's dishonest and it is a disservice to one's own character.

 
At 7/29/2011 11:23 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"The "center for data analysis" does not collect or source data - they use data generated by others usually."

That's right, hence their name: Center for Data ANALYSIS.

"Most credible organizations cite their sources and/or show how they got their data."

Correct once again: the Heritage Foundation center for Data ANALYSIS report on military demographics shows that the data they analyzed came from the US Department of Defense, and the US Census Bureau.

Are there other sources you trust more? Is the Defense Dept. known for spewing right wing propaganda and lies? How about the Census Bureau?

OOOPS! You didn't really read that report, did you, Larry. You knew that if someone like Che is dead gave you a reference, that the jig was up. You knew that it would demolish your lame, baseless, assertion.

That's 2 for 2, Larry, two sentences from you, two lines of nonsense. How do those feet taste, Larry, you should be pretty used to then after all this time.

Shall we go on & try for more? how about this, your third sentence?

"In addition - using income as a determinate is questionable if you are talking about people who are already in the service."

Well, what moron would use such a stupid determinant?

"You'll also find that the lower income folks are the ones who provide the manpower for the military over there ..." -- Larry G"

Whooooops! Wow, Larry, that's 3 for three. You really are a fool. I am almost embarrassed FOR you. How can you keep asking for such abuse?

 
At 7/30/2011 8:18 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

The bottom 20% don't pay anything in income tax so your argument does not work.

When it comes to Buffetts, I prefer Howard to Warren. He was not as rich but defended the taxpayer and individual liberty in ways that his son never did. While he protected the consumer by opposing the expansion of government Warren tried to figure out how to use the actions of government to make more money by being in businesses where providers were protected from competition.

 
At 7/30/2011 9:33 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

"whoops".... if the data came from DOD then reference DOD idiot not some right wing propaganda fools.

where is the DOD link?

I'm betting the DOD link is non-existent or does not show for the right wing fools purport that it shows.. which is par for the course with them.

 
At 7/30/2011 9:41 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: the bottom 20%. I think EVERYONE will have to pay more (progressively) if we are serious about getting rid of the ANNUAL 1.5 trillion deficit AS WELL AS - the fast growing 14+ trillion deficit.

I do NOT think that taxing the rich alone is fair nor will it actually accomplish the goal.

but the endless arguments about who caused it does not deal responsibly with it.

Supply side economics "theory" is not going to "fix" it either.

and "cuts" alone are not going to fix it.

Two deficit commissions gave credible and balanced approaches that involved all 3 things. Cuts, taxes AND ... SOME REASONABLE supply side ideas that often work rather than the ones that work only sometimes and have not worked in almost a decade despite what people say about it working under Reagan.

 
At 7/30/2011 1:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"where is the DOD link?

I'm betting the DOD link is non-existent or does not show for the right wing fools purport that it shows.. which is par for the course with them.
"

You're betting? That means you don't know for sure.

Just read the report, Larry, the answers are there for everyone but you.

Why do you insist on continuing to look clueless?

 
At 7/30/2011 1:27 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"re: the bottom 20%. I think EVERYONE will have to pay more (progressively) if we are serious about getting rid of the ANNUAL 1.5 trillion deficit AS WELL AS - the fast growing 14+ trillion deficit."

There is no fast growing 14+ trillion deficit, Larry. Your continued misuse of the term leads me to believe you really don't understand the meaning of the word.

"I do NOT think that taxing the rich alone is fair nor will it actually accomplish the goal."

Most would agree with you on this one.

I hope you don't mind my saving this one sentence so if anyone ever accuses you of never being right, I can jump to your defense by pointing to this one comment.

"and "cuts" alone are not going to fix it."

But,you've already agreed that they would, in your response to Sprewell and his reference to Stossel's list. Remember?

"Two deficit commissions gave credible and balanced approaches that involved all 3 things. Cuts, taxes AND ... SOME REASONABLE supply side ideas that often work..."

If they were so good, why did Obama reject them? Isn't he serious about reducing the deficit?

OK, I'll just give you the answer: It's no.

 
At 7/30/2011 7:44 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

just provide the link or admit you're into propaganda by the right wing and not so interested in the facts.

Folks who have the facts are GLAD to share them. Folks who are playing with the facts are hard to get the source material out of or.. they reference right wing propaganda sites for their "source".

 
At 7/30/2011 7:48 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: " But,you've already agreed that they would, in your response to Sprewell and his reference to Stossel's list. Remember? "

I also said it was not politically viable. I also asked WHY the Republicans who say that we can do it with cuts alone cannot generate their own list. Why can't the folks who claim to be fiscal conservatives prove it?


"Two deficit commissions gave credible and balanced approaches that involved all 3 things. Cuts, taxes AND ... SOME REASONABLE supply side ideas that often work..."

If they were so good, why did Obama reject them? Isn't he serious about reducing the deficit?

Obama HAS adopted some of it but the bigger point here is that the Republicans and right wing groups did not do a similar report showing how they can balance the budget and pay off the debt with cuts alone.

Where is the Republican plan?

AWOL.

The guys who say Obama's approach is wrong because it contains additional revenue - when it is not needed - have not showed how.

why?

 
At 7/30/2011 8:19 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

The Heritage Folks - true to form - claim they use DOD data but don't reference it in the report nor in footnotes.

Here's what is missing.

the average age, education and pre-service income for soldiers actually in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I can tell you that in my neck of the woods - where they do report who is joining the service and reporting to Afghanistan and Iraq that they are very young, don't have more than a high school education, often married with kids and usually are not quitting a high paying job to enlist.

there is nothing particularly shocking about this.

What would be shocking would be for a college-educated professional with a well-paying job with benefits including health insurance to quite that job and take a much lower salary and be separated from his (her) family.

this is common sense.

What the Heritage Folks did is what they often do - which is gen up a "comprehensive looking" report that veers off of the fundamental question to make points that sound like they're on the issue but reading their reports indicates that they are not (in this case they talk about very, very general stats...) and they do not reference their specific source material.... no footnotes...

it's your plain old vanilla propaganda that the right wing loves to spew and borders on disinformation.

but it gives 'cover' to those folks who claim to be libertarians but strangely adopt the Republican view of the wars and our involvement in them - unlike what Ron Paul says that they are plain ordinary war-mongering and nation-building done at great expense to our country finances and young people who come home maimed and missing limbs and need a lifetime of VA care.

People who actually CARE about the country, it's deficit/debt and it's young people are far more tuned to the Libertarian ethic than organizations like Heritage and it's parroting supporters.

 
At 7/30/2011 8:22 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Individual recruit income data are not available. In computing the average household income for recruits, each recruit was assigned the median household income for his or her ZCTA."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/10/who-are-the-recruits-the-demographic-characteristics-of-us-military-enlistment-2003-2005

Lord!

did you guys ACTUALLY READ THIS?

ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves for buying this crap which the Heritage folks so much as admit... deep into the middle of their feckless "analysis".

 
At 7/30/2011 11:34 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

I can tell you that in my neck of the woods - where they do report who is joining the service and reporting to Afghanistan and Iraq ... (from Heritage: "... each recruit was assigned the median household income for his or her ZCTA") ... did you guys ACTUALLY READ THIS? -- Larry G

Heritage's methodology is straight forward, it assigns recruits an income class category based on the median household income for the zip code that they live in. Or, if you prefer, for their "neck of the woods". Using the median places the recruit squarely in the middle - half the households making more and half making less - of their zip codes income range. There is absolutely no attempt to deceive anyone.

It really is time for you to grow up.

 
At 7/30/2011 11:38 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Heritage's methodology is straight forward, it assigns recruits an income class category based on the median household income for the zip code that they live in"

and totally bogus.... and exposes the propaganda game they are playing.

take a look at this chart:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/ages/

Now you tell me ..for any given zip code whether or not a 21 year old makes the "average household income" for that zip code.

totally ... bogus...

but this is the kind of skunk data that Heritage shoots out their backside.

 
At 7/31/2011 3:16 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Now you tell me ..for any given zip code whether or not a 21 year old makes the "average household income" for that zip code."

Larry......do you understand the difference between median and average? Are you just using words carelessly, or do you really not know?

"take a look at this chart:"

You take a look at the chart. Does it give you the ages of all enlistees? Do you believe soldiers are killed in direct proportion to their total numbers by age in the service? This is really lame, Larry.

In any case it's apparent you are missing the point. While most enlistees may be young, the data shows that more of them are from well to do households than from poorer ones. There's no indication, and no reason to believe, that they are heads of households or sole earners in the household.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? You have a serious disconnect when it comes to logical thinking.

 
At 7/31/2011 8:58 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

I well understand the difference between mean and average my man and I also understand when someone is cooking data like Heritage is and others know it, like you,and still dishonestly cite their material as credible.

Heritage is claiming on data is available. I bet the average age of the recruit is available and I bet the average age of those who die are very close to the overall demographics of the force unless you want to believe the Army selected the youngest and most inexperienced for the deadliest of duties.

Does anyone with any honestly here actually believe that the average OR median income for 20-something folks in a given zip is the same as the average-median for all ages in that zip?

this is just plain dishonest and it's typical of how the Heritage folks avoid the simple truth and provide illicit information to provide folks like you with data to back up your own lack of interest in the truth and the realities and to confirm your own little made up world which does not conform at all the the real world we live in.

In my neck of the woods - the VAST majority of recruits are young high school graduates, no college and no well-paying job and the vast majority of those who get killed and maimed are ALSO young 20-somethings.... and the ones that return home in one piece, often go into law enforcement.

Besides... I thought that TRUE libertarians were like Ron Paul when it comes to war.

He says over and over it's a terrible financial and human waste for America. He AGREES with Mr. Moore on that issue by the way.

So are you a REAL libertarian or are you just another tea party wannbe masquerading as a libertarian?

 
At 7/31/2011 10:25 AM, Blogger Jon said...

Che wrote:

After accounting for the myriad of tax shelters and other special favors written into the tax code, how much did the federal government actually collect during that era? Do you know?

Yes I do. Recall how you had claimed that the Bush tax cuts increased federal revenue, and I provided the data showing that this was wrong? That same data shows historical tax receipts.

With regards to the tax shelters and favors written into the tax code, Piketty and Saez lay out the facts here. You dismiss Saez as a liberal, but data is data. If you have a better source on the data let's see it.

There's a good chart that shows the findings of Piketty and Saez here. The relatively prosperous 50's, 60's, and 70's corresponded with a much more progressive tax code when you look at the top 1% of earners, particularly the to 0.01%.

 
At 7/31/2011 1:59 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I well understand the difference between mean and average my man..."

I'm glad to hear it, but surely even you understand...well no, I take that back.

Larry: 'mean' and 'average' are the same thing. The word you want is 'median'. The report and it's explanation refer to "median household income.

Is this more of your careless use of the words like 'debt' and 'deficit'? If you actually do know what you're talking about, you need to use the correct words, or it's assumed that you don't.

Does the word 'household' confuse you?

Let's agree on definitions:

- Average, or mean, is the number obtained by dividing the sum total of a set of figures by the number of figures. For instance, the total income in a zip code, divided by the number of income earners is the average income for that zipcode.

- Median, is the value at which there are as many instances above as there are below.

- Household, is a person or group of people living in the same residence.

- Income, I don't need to define that one for you, do I?

- Household Income, is the total income of everyone living in a residence, or household.

OK so far?

So, the 'median household income' by zip code is that income at which there are an equal number of households with higher income and lower income in that zip code.

So, when you ask the following:

"Does anyone with any honestly here actually believe that the average OR median income for 20-something folks in a given zip is the same as the average-median for all ages in that zip?"

The answer is yes, we all believe that "median household income" can be applied to everyone in a zip code, regardless of age. The term doesn't describe the income of any individual, but only the income of the entire household.

So, a young person with low or no income can live in a wealthy household.

Further, as the Heritage Foundation report does, it's perfectly acceptable to rank zip codes by median household income, on a scale from poor zip codes to wealthy zip codes.

The whole point of the the report, and the bottom line here Larry, is that contrary to the popular belief that the military is filled with poor and disadvantaged folks, It seems that more people from wealthy households enlist than from poor households.

So by dismissing the conclusions of the report as 'bogus' or 'propaganda' because you don't understand the basic definitions of words, or worse yet refuse to admit you're wrong, you show the world that you're a clueless fool.

 
At 7/31/2011 6:20 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Let's agree on this: Whether you are talking about the MEAN or the AVERAGE of 21 year-olds but using household income in a zip code.. you are totally bogus when saying that that is representatives of 21 year olds.

It's out and out lying and propaganda NOT in search of the truth and reality but spinning the data to support preconceived /wishful thinking ideologies.

they totally undercut their whole premise by making a flimsy excuse about the data not being available so they make it up..

want to know the average recruit age from a CREDIBLE Source?

http://www.2k.army.mil/faqs.htm#age

why can't Heritage find that data?

anyone REALLY believe that the average 21 year old high school graduate makes the average or mean household income for a given zip?

this is the kind of idiocy you folks engage in...

 
At 7/31/2011 6:50 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Recall how you had claimed that the Bush tax cuts increased federal revenue, and I provided the data showing that this was wrong? -- Jon

The data you link to shows that tax receipts, by every measure - current dollars, constant 2005 dollars or as a percent of GDP - increased after Bush's 2003 tax rate adjustment. As for your link to the Piketty and Saez study, I am not going to trudge through the whole thing only to find that you have misread or misinterpreted some portion of it. If the chart that you linked to sums up their findings, then I say - so what? I never argued that the taxes on the wealthy were not higher during the 50's, 60's and 70's. I said that tax revenue increased after Kennedy, Reagan and Bush lowered tax rates. You need to work on your comprehension.

 
At 7/31/2011 6:54 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Ron H.,

You've got the patience of Job.

 
At 7/31/2011 6:59 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

It does not matter WHO - lowered tax rates.

It MATTERS what the net result was with the deficit and debt.

and the truth and the reality is that tax cuts FAILED to achieve their claimed benefit which is to balance the budget and wipe out the debt.

tax cuts have not done that.

that's the truth.

the truth is also that we have a 14.6 trillion dollar deficit that we owe to the Chinese and others and we refuse to pay it because we want to affix "blame" for it rather than take responsibility for it.

How will we pay the debt and balance the budget?

give me an answer.

don't give me the supply side blather that has a PROVEN track record of not providing ENOUGH benefit to balance the budget and wipe out our debt.

 
At 7/31/2011 7:09 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

we are sending 21-year olds to Afghanistan and Iraq and we are paying them with IOUs to the Chinese.

Who supports such a thing?

Not Ron Paul.

step up here in Carp Diem.

WHO SUPPORTS sending our 21 year olds over seas and paying them (and their families) with IOUs to the Chinese?

 
At 7/31/2011 8:26 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Let's agree on this: Whether you are talking about the MEAN or the AVERAGE of 21 year-olds but using household income in a zip code.. you are totally bogus when saying that that is representatives of 21 year olds."

You really are this stupid. I gave you the definitions, and all the explanation anyone could need.

You don't understand average, median, or household income.

The age of recruits isn't important. No one but you has any need for it, so it's not part of the report.

"anyone REALLY believe that the average 21 year old high school graduate makes the average or mean household income for a given zip?"

Larry, listen carefully. Everyone believes that the average 21 yo high school graduate lives in a household - that's household, shit-4-brains - that makes the median household income for the zip code they live in.

The income of individual enlistees is not important, as no one but you cares what it is. The entire point, and this is all there is to it, is that more people from wealthy families join the military than do people from poor families.

Either you are pretending to not understand this, because you like playing games, or you really are one of the world's stupidest people.

 
At 7/31/2011 8:32 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Ron - you are such a DOLT.

why would a 21 year old - with a family join the armed forces and if he/she did what would their household income likely be?

Would it be the MEAN or the AVERAGE of a given ZIP Code?

no FOOL, it would not but yet that is the bat guano that you and Heritage are peddling.

Ya'll are corrupt.. fools willing to peddle obviously false propaganda to suit your ideological idiocy.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of "recruits" in the military are non-college educated in search of a good paying job with health care benefits for their family.

The "average" recruit is NOT someone who makes the average or mean household income in a given ZIP code and the blather spewed out by the Heritage folks and parroted by you are clear examples of the idiocy that you claim as an ideology.

you are irrelevant in the political scheme of things.

No politician, not even Ron Paul supports your view... none.

you are a man without a role in how the country moves forward because you fail to accept the realities and choose to believe something that has little or nothing to do with those realities.

 
At 7/31/2011 8:38 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Ron - what you and the Heritage folks are peddling has NOTHING to do with Libertarians.

nothing. Ron Paul, nor any other Libertarian would agree with you and much more likely agree with my view.

So who exactly are you and what exactly is your politics because it's clearly not Libertarian-ism.

I think you are a right-wing zealot who identifies with the Tea Party much more than Libertarians.

True Libertarians recognize the corrupt nature of the wars that we send our young to fight... get killed and maimed and cost the country money that we don't have and basically owe to the Chinese.

NO REAL Libertarian would support that.

 
At 7/31/2011 8:47 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Che is dead:

"You've got the patience of Job."

Thank you.

This is good practice. Sometimes, like now, when I have a lot of spare time, I don't mind playing whack-a Larry to see what will pop up next. It's truly amazing that anyone can write what he does, apparently with no embarrassment.

 
At 7/31/2011 8:52 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

well.. having the patience of job is necessary when you've got crap for brains....but think you are a genius.

I don't know what rock some of you came from under but it was not called "libertarian".

right-wing ideologues.. are what appears to be the case and in general those folks have crap for brains.

Witness the current negotiations on the budget... you guys have ZERO representation... no one represents your views... why?

crap for brains is a good explanation, eh?

 
At 7/31/2011 9:12 PM, Blogger Jon said...

Che, tax receipts go up almost every year. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and in 2003. Following the 2001 cuts revenues fell. Then they fell the next year. And the next. Then Bush passed another tax cut and he was at the trough. Revenues were up slightly. The overall record for Bush on tax receipts is an abysmal failure. The worst performance of any President on the list. And if you include 2009, which is really a Bush budget, it's even more disastrous. By any meaningful measure it's an atrocious performance. To point to this like it's some sort of evidence that the Bush tax cuts generated an increase in revenue is bizarre.

Again, I want to repeat. It's the worst performance in terms of revenue generation of any other President in the list, including 1 term presidents. A quick down turn for a 1 term President is tough to recover from. The economy generally grows, meaning generally tax revenues should be increasing all things being equal. Bush even though he had 8 years managed the worst performance of any President. You read that and think it's evidence that tax cuts are excellent revenue generators. Then you claim I don't read sources well. OK.

 
At 7/31/2011 9:18 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Che and company don't deal well with the realities.

The realities are that the tax-cuts did not perform.

In some years, they may have generated SOME revenues but not near enough to offset the overall loss in total revenues and so we have a 1.5 structural deficit and a 14.5 trillion debt.. despite all the blather about tax cuts generating "more" revenues.

And the really wild thing about this is that these folks have NO PLAN B if the tax cuts fails to produce the revenues required to cut the deficit and debt.

they just go on repeating the theoretical nonsense..like if they do so often enough. the results will improve.

they have ZERO ANSWERS for what to do with the deficit and debt when the supply-side magic flops.

 
At 8/01/2011 12:12 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.524 trillion in 2008 — an increase of $742 billion, or 41 percent with taxes paid by the wealthiest households more than doubling. So, yes, tax receipts increased after Bush's tax cuts. What's more, the federal deficit shrank every year until 2007 when Congress changed hands — all after tax cuts that Democrats had portrayed as disastrous for the economy.

In looking at tax receipts during Bush's term it is important to remember that Bush, like Obama, inherited economic challenges including an epic stock market crash and the ensuing recession, and 9/11. Unlike Obama, he implemented policies that worked to stabilize and grow the economy. Tax cuts, like most changes in economic policy, do not effect the economy immediately so, yes, tax receipts fell in the first part of his presidency. But even with an inherited recession and the implementation of tax cuts, tax receipts remained very near their long term average of 18 percent of GDP.

As for claiming that "tax cuts are excellent revenue generators" , I never made such a claim. I believe that Laffer is essentially correct, that at some point along the curve tax rates help to optimize economic growth and as a matter of consequence, tax revenue.

 
At 8/01/2011 9:00 AM, Blogger Jon said...

You pick the Bush low and you pick the Bush high and you say wow, look at that increase. Then you say that economic policies take a while to have an effect. So why stop at 2008? The Bush tax cuts applied in 2009 and 2010. These years were disastrous.

The deficit shrank every year until 2007? How can you say that? It was a surplus in 2000, a smaller surplus in 2001, then a deficit, then a larger deficit.

Bush implemented policies to stabilize and grow the economy? This is a stable and growing economy?

Here are the uncomfortable facts. The top .01% paid an effective tax rate of 70% in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. This period was characterized by larger economic growth, egalitarian growth, and lower unemployment. Median family income rising rapidly. Family working hours were lower. Savings rates were higher. There were no financial crises.

Then came the supply side era. Lower tax rates for the wealthy. Reduced regulation. Reduced union membership. What has been the result? Repeated banking crises. Higher unemployment. Lower economic growth, both in the US and world wide. Expanding inequality. Increased family working hours. A very surprising decline in hourly wages.

Bush has implemented polices to stabilize and grow the economy. The result? Even lower growth. Even more inequality. Another reduction in hourly wages. And of course the biggest banking crisis ever.

If this doesn't awaken people I'm not sure what will.

 
At 8/01/2011 9:32 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

the bottom line is that many who claim to be fiscal conservatives continue to insist that we should continue tax cuts and even have more tax cuts because they will generate the revenues needed rather than additional taxes.

But it's rarely actually worked that way in any significant enough way to deal with the size and scope of the 1.5 trillion annual deficit and 14+ trillion debt.

Even Ronald Reagans supply-side budget advisors concur on this.

but the biggest failure of these folks is that they have no Plan B to deal with the deficit and debt if their supply-side theories do not generate sufficient revenues to actually balanced the budget, much less surpluses that would then buy down the debt.

We DO take in MORE revenues than before but A. we have more people paying taxes from population growth and B. we have spent more - on the military, on two wars, on Medicare Part D and (fairly) entitlements such as Medicare Part B and MedicAid.

When these same folks talk about "cuts" - they do not provide a list of cuts sufficient to deal with the deficit nor do they want to cut things like the military, Part D or pull troops out from the middle east.

So they don't want to actually cut the things that actually increased the spending and deficit but instead insist that cutting entitlements alone will work.

This is essentially Paul Ryans "plan".

Cut entitlements and rely on supply-side economics to make up the gap in military spending and he says we can do it by 2040 but we'll have to have an unemployment rate of 3%.

this is the kind of NON-responses we get to the CURRENT IMMEDIATE issues.

so we have a serious deficit and debt problem and the folks who portray themselves as fiscal conservatives insist that supply-side must work or else -and the " or else" is to essentially repeating over and over - "supply side works".

 
At 8/01/2011 1:02 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"You pick the Bush low and you pick the Bush high and you say wow, look at that increase. Then you say that economic policies take a while to have an effect. So why stop at 2008? The Bush tax cuts applied in 2009 and 2010. These years were disastrous."

No, I picked the year in which the tax cuts took effect. Moron. I stopped at 2008 because Bush was no longer in office. You point out that the tax cuts "applied in 2009 and 2010", why? The Democrats controlled every branch of the government and could have eliminated them and jacked tax rates up to your nirvana inducing levels without any recourse by the Republicans. No, if Obama and the Democrats chose to maintain tax rates that they insisted were injurious to the economy even when they had been give absolute power - at that point, they own them.

Of course, I would argue that had those tax cuts not been in force the downturn would have been much worse - sound familiar? In fact, I think that they probably "saved or created" millions of jobs.

"It was a surplus in 2000, a smaller surplus in 2001, then a deficit, then a larger deficit."

And then it reversed and started to shrink. And lo and behold, that happened just after Bush reduced tax rates. Using your lefty logic, shouldn't the deficit have continued to increase? You see, just like your insisting that Bush be held responsible for 2009 and 2010, one could also insist that Clinton be held responsible for 2000 and 2001.

If none of this wakes you up, you're fucking clueless.

 
At 8/01/2011 1:50 PM, Blogger Jon said...

I'm not a partisan like you, so I'm happy to lay blame at the feet of Democrats. Fine, the democrats own the tax cuts. And the tax cuts have been disastrous for our deficit situation.

You're just wrong on the Bush tax cuts. They started immediately, though they phased in. People got rebate checks in the year 2001.

But if Bush hadn't done it things would have been even worse. He gave us the worst performance on record. But it's a good thing he did what he did. Otherwise things would have been worse still. Perfectly unfalsifiable. You're well insulated from the real world with these arguments. Sure, disaster has followed supply side economics. When tax rates were higher for the wealthy we had wonderful growth, low unemployment, greater equality. The slashing of the taxes has coincided with downturn by just about every measure. There's no proof that this is good for an economy. You just have this fantasy in your mind that says if Bush hadn't done this things would be even worse. There's no evidence. It just makes sense to you. Good luck with that.

 
At 8/01/2011 5:54 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"... it's a good thing he did what he did. Otherwise things would have been worse still. Perfectly unfalsifiable ... You just have this fantasy in your mind that says if Bush hadn't done this things would be even worse. There's no evidence."

Can you possibly be this dense? I was being sarcastic, the " things would have been worse still" argument is one that's made routinely by Obama and his minions when trying to explain the failure of his policies. That's why I wrote - "sound familiar". "Saved or created" is also another Obama meme. You really need to get out more.

As for my tongue-in-cheek claim being unfalsifiable, perhaps, but the vast majority of economists would seem to agree. And while that may not be evidence, it's a damn sight more than you've got.

 
At 8/02/2011 1:12 PM, Blogger Jon said...

I guess I am that dense. I did not get your joke. Hey, it's internet communication. This stuff happens. You're coming across very hostile though. Is that intentional?

Good info on the consensus of economists. I can certainly understand why that would be compelling.

 
At 8/03/2011 7:13 AM, Blogger VangelV said...


WHO SUPPORTS sending our 21 year olds over seas and paying them (and their families) with IOUs to the Chinese?


The leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties. Obama. Reed. Daniels. Romney. Palin. Bachman. Pawlenty. Clinton. Powers. Rice. You name the 'player' and you get support for the war and for even more spending. Remember that when the vote to give Bush the right to invade without consulting Congress the Ron Paul types were portrayed as traitors and the Republican Party tried to run other candidates to remove them from their seats.

 
At 8/03/2011 7:16 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

well.. having the patience of job is necessary when you've got crap for brains....but think you are a genius....

You have to love the irony. The author of some of the stupidest posts ever is accusing others of having crap for brains but thinking that they are geniuses.

Do you have a mirror. Look into it.

 
At 8/03/2011 7:17 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

It MATTERS what the net result was with the deficit and debt.

The last time I looked deficits were caused by the increase in spending. Tax revenues have gone up substantially. Spending has gone up faster.

and the truth and the reality is that tax cuts FAILED to achieve their claimed benefit which is to balance the budget and wipe out the debt.

It is true that the budget was not balanced and the debt was not wiped out. But who says that was the goal? If it really were the goal spending would have been cut to balance the increased tax revenues, not hiked to even more obscene levels.

 
At 8/03/2011 7:29 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Che, tax receipts go up almost every year. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and in 2003. Following the 2001 cuts revenues fell.

Why do you think that was? The 1990s were a massive bubble created by loose money policies at the Fed. The capital gains taxes exploded thanks to that bubble. When the game was over and the Clinton recession began Bush was stuck with much lower revenues and climbing unemployment rates.

Then they fell the next year. And the next.

That is what should happen. When bubbles collapse the revenues should fall substantially.

Then Bush passed another tax cut and he was at the trough. Revenues were up slightly. The overall record for Bush on tax receipts is an abysmal failure.

No. The record of the Bush spending increases is an abysmal failure. Bush had a chance to let the recovery take place by letting the malinvestments get liquidated by the markets. Instead he went for reelection and spent more money than he should have.

The worst performance of any President on the list.

Bush was a terrible president but Obama is even worse. He also had a chance to let malinvsestments be liquidated but could not help himself so he chose to meddle. That pushed the USD and the nation to the brink.

And if you include 2009, which is really a Bush budget, it's even more disastrous.

This is interesting. The 'Bush budget'? Didn't Congress pass the budget? I do not recall that Bush created the 2009 budget on his own. Democrats were in power for two years. Didn't they have anything to do with the budget?

By any meaningful measure it's an atrocious performance. To point to this like it's some sort of evidence that the Bush tax cuts generated an increase in revenue is bizarre.

Let us look at the data:

It does not look as if revenues were the problem.

 
At 8/03/2011 7:32 AM, Blogger VangelV said...


Again, I want to repeat. It's the worst performance in terms of revenue generation of any other President in the list, including 1 term presidents. A quick down turn for a 1 term President is tough to recover from. The economy generally grows, meaning generally tax revenues should be increasing all things being equal. Bush even though he had 8 years managed the worst performance of any President. You read that and think it's evidence that tax cuts are excellent revenue generators. Then you claim I don't read sources well. OK.


Look at the spending and you will see why Bush is one of the worst presidents ever. In case you missed it above, here you go.

The problem with the US is not revenue but spending. By not addressing that problem Congress and Obama are going to make the current administration the worst one in history.

 
At 8/03/2011 7:37 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

You pick the Bush low and you pick the Bush high and you say wow, look at that increase. Then you say that economic policies take a while to have an effect. So why stop at 2008? The Bush tax cuts applied in 2009 and 2010. These years were disastrous.

You are all cherry picking. When you have a bubble or a massive correction you can't assume that the number you pick out of the air has any meaning. When you try to attach meaning all you are doing is creating a narrative to support a position that is ideological, even when it has nothing to do with reality.

The reality is very simple. The US federal, state, and local governments spend way too much as do most governments around the world. This was only made possible by money printing. That game is about to end.

 
At 8/03/2011 8:18 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Van.. my man... you do have a view. It's a VERY minority view and as you have proven .. you have no principles with respect to honestly and clarity on the issues and have no problem lying and using obvious propaganda... then to top it off try to intimidate and insult those you disagree with.

you a piece of work for sure.

 
At 8/03/2011 2:35 PM, Blogger Jon said...

VangeIV, for the most part we agree. Sure, revenues should be expected to drop in a recession. My objection to Che is his claim that the Bush tax cuts lead to additional revenue. It's kind of hard to draw that conclusion based on the data, so Che altered his claim. The 2003 cuts were followed by an increase in revenue even though the 2001 cuts weren't. That's fine I guess. The increase was tiny. You expect increases generally because the economy normally grows. So I guess the answer is, so what? Looking at Bush's overall revenue generation, it's horrible.

Was his spending likewise horrible? Yeah. Is Obama horrible? Sure. Obama is a Republican dream come true, as even Bill Kristol recognizes. See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIKxLr_AWj8

 
At 8/03/2011 6:18 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

it don't matter who shot John on the deficit/debt... we got it and we need to pay it .... and if we can do it with supply-side, GREAT, but if we can't then what?

 
At 8/04/2011 7:49 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Van.. my man... you do have a view. It's a VERY minority view and as you have proven ..

I have no trouble being in the minority when I am right.

you have no principles with respect to honestly and clarity on the issues and have no problem lying and using obvious propaganda... then to top it off try to intimidate and insult those you disagree with.

Cut the BS generalization and deal in specifics. We can all call each other names but unless they are supported by facts they are meaningless. I have no trouble saying that you are ignorant and stupid because you proved that during your postings on pensions and insurance. I have no trouble you calling me names as long as you can provide the specifics to support those views.

 
At 8/04/2011 7:53 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

VangeIV, for the most part we agree. Sure, revenues should be expected to drop in a recession. My objection to Che is his claim that the Bush tax cuts lead to additional revenue. It's kind of hard to draw that conclusion based on the data, so Che altered his claim. The 2003 cuts were followed by an increase in revenue even though the 2001 cuts weren't. That's fine I guess. The increase was tiny. You expect increases generally because the economy normally grows. So I guess the answer is, so what? Looking at Bush's overall revenue generation, it's horrible.

Che seems to have a blind spot and tends to excuse the idiocy of Republicans while he attacks the idiocy of Democrats. But I am not sure that in this case you can draw any conclusions because of the huge problems that Bush inherited from Clinton. The economy was collapsing as the IT bubble burst and took all those capital gains revenues with it. It is hard to blame Bush for that or to assume that the bubble created tax revenues under Clinton were sustainable.

My point is that there is something more tangible that we can look to with Bush. And that is his spending. He was a big-government proponent who spent with the best of them. And it is that spending, not the revenues, that created the problems that the US found itself in.

 
At 8/04/2011 7:55 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

it don't matter who shot John on the deficit/debt... we got it and we need to pay it .... and if we can do it with supply-side, GREAT, but if we can't then what?

You will do what governments have always done. Default. The currency will die as all fiat currencies do and you will start all over again with a much lower standard of living. Do you expect anything different?

 
At 8/04/2011 8:13 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Van - you call names when you don't agree - not when you are "right".

that's the bottom line here.

you just call names and as long as you do I'll return the favor.

You don't know crap from crapoloa on SS, Medicare and pensions in general.

You don't know that there are 4 Medicare trust funds, not one and that one if financed by FICA and the other 3 by income taxes.

you never explained how you define an unfunded liability when a program is funded by income taxes.

you run away from the questions you don't know the answer to or know you're wrong on and hurl insults like a 2-year old throwing tantrums.

you are stuck in adolescence UNABLE to disagree on the merits without being disagreeable.

"right" in your own mind is not "right" fool.

there are some meaty and worthwhile debates to have over things like Social Security and Medicare but when you don't even know and understand the basic facts and then use insults to justify your idiocy.. you show who you really are... a dumbass

 
At 8/08/2011 10:08 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Van - you call names when you don't agree - not when you are "right".

that's the bottom line here.


No. The bottom line is that you have turned out to be one of the most illogical and ignorant posters of all time. I am surprised that Guiness hasn't contacted you yet.

 
At 8/16/2011 6:03 AM, Blogger Debutopia said...

Buffett is right when he says that the burden has not been equally shared and I respect him for saying it so publicly. I love it when the big dogs have a heart for the little ones by recognizing their own role in securing America's future position -- and by taking up the more defensible position that we're all just part of the same social pack of medium-sized dogs. "Debutopia" on Blogspot.

 
At 8/16/2011 12:32 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Buffett is right when he says that the burden has not been equally shared and I respect him for saying it so publicly. I love it when the big dogs have a heart for the little ones by recognizing their own role in securing America's future position -- and by taking up the more defensible position that we're all just part of the same social pack of medium-sized dogs. "Debutopia" on Blogspot.

Buffet makes money by betting on rising taxes moving more business towards his insurance units, that subsidies will provide greater profits for the companies that he invests in. Note that a higher income tax rate will not affect him because he does not have a high salary. And that if he wanted to pay more taxes he has been free to do so. In fact, he has argued against paying out dividends because that lowers the tax rate for his investors.

If you want a coherent Buffet who speaks clearly about the burdens on workers and savers look to his father Howard. The son has become rich by taking advantage of the parasitic nature of government and wants more of it. That does not help workers or savers.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home