Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

host · 07-31-2007, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

what part of my quote didn't you understand?
there is NOTHING progressive about taxes. The reasoning behind this is so very simple if one bothers to look at who makes the tax laws.

special interest groups will always get the power of legislative ears because of money. this 'attention' will almost always garner a favorable outcome for these special interests.

attempting to 'offset the outsized power and influence' is useless because it will only change the balance of power between two general sets of interest groups, especially considering the divide of political power between two radically different parties.

what you're really trying to promote is the redistribution of wealth by 'progressive' taxation, an oxymoron if ever there was one, instead of acknowledging that the reason this taxation looks necessary is because we've let special interest groups provide over-regulation of commerce, thereby providing those groups with even greater power over us.

The SS issue was totally destroyed when it was transferred to the general budget, decades before Bush was president. Trying to blame bush for a deficit or credit clinton with a surplus is nothing more than partisan hack BS.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the resistance to progressive taxes and inheritance taxes aimed at collecting more from folks like war profiteers, William, Neil, and GHW Bush, Erik Prince, Joe Allbaugh, and Dick Cheney. The demcorats did it in 1993, and my research shows, income tax revenue rose from $1154 billion in 1993, to more than $2025 billion in 2000, and then reversed dramatically for years, under the tax policies of a republican controlled congress and white house.

The 2006 NY Times article shows that, although the wealthiest ten percent owned 70 percent of total US wealth in 2004, they only paid 67 percent of all income taxes in 2005. Tax law changes in 1993 had the effect of making them pay more, until the reversal of policy, after 2001.

If they can be made to pay 2/3 of all income taxes collected, why not use our superior voting numbers to attempt to collect 75 percent of all income taxes collected, from them? in 2006, the wealthiest one percent nearly managed to bring a senate bill to the floor for a simple majority vote that, is it had passed, would have been signed by Bush and resulted in elimination of inheritance tax, slated now to return at 2002 level, in 2011. Why are there so many "have nots", who support the agenda of the rich? Aren't the rich the folks who put the crop of federal politicians in office who turned annual total treasury debt, reduced to just $18 billion, in 2000...back to an annual average of $412 billion, each year since 2001? They deliberately shifted their former tax burden to you and your grandchildren....from pay as you go in 2000, to borrowing $3 trillion since....yet there is an advocacy here for taxing everyone equally, a "fair tax"...why...where does that thinking come from?

<h3>Because the debt has increased by $3 trillion in just the last six years, interest payments on the debt rose to $406 billion, last year. The government needs revenue, and 70 percent of the wealth is in ten percent of the hands. The other 90 percent of us have the votes, but, as you can see in posts here, there is much sentiment against taxing the rich, like we did from 1993 to 2001...why?</h3>

This article suports the revenue numbers that I posted on 10-09-06, and my contention that the top ten percent have much less ability to a avoid progressive tax increases that are fairer to the rest of us, aong with inheritance taxes reverting in 2011, back to their pre-Bush admin levels that were as high as 55 percent, and affected <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800138.html">only 1.17 percent of all estates</a>:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/we...rssnyt&emc=rss
Those Wild Budget Swings
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 16, 2006

....At first blush, the recent jump in tax revenue would seem to validate Mr. Bush and those who believe that tax cuts ultimately generate higher tax revenues because they prompt people to work harder, invest more and take more entrepreneurial risk.

The White House, in a news release last week, boasted that tax revenues have climbed 34 percent since Congress passed Mr. Bush’s second big tax cut — which included a major reduction in taxes on stock dividends and capital gains.

But revenues are only up in comparison with how low they had plunged in recent years. Individual income taxes, the biggest component of federal revenue, are barely back to the level that was reached in 2000, $1 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, income tax revenue is still lower than six years ago.

“The idea that tax cuts have led to higher revenues is pernicious,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan research group that lobbies for fiscal discipline. “Tax revenues may be higher, but they are not higher than they would have been if the tax cuts hadn’t occurred.”

But beyond the perennial debate about whether “fiscal discipline” means raising taxes or cutting spending, there is also an issue about the increasingly erratic pattern of the tax revenue itself.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers — those who earn more than $300,000 a year — provide about 30 percent of the federal government’s individual income tax revenues. <h3>The top 10 percent of taxpayers — those with incomes above $100,000 — provide about two-thirds of income tax revenue.</h3>

The lopsided burden is partly a result of progressive taxation, and partly a result of widening income disparities between people at the top and bottom of the economic ladder.

It’s hard to imagine what the federal government could do to reduce instability. Because about 40 million people do not owe any federal income taxes, almost any attempt to broaden the tax base would shift more of the tax burden from the wealthy to middle-income households. Yet the more the rich bear the burden, the more they will seek to escape it.

The unpredictable tax revenues first surfaced almost 10 years ago, as booming economic growth and the dot-com frenzy propelled the stock market to spectacular highs. The result was a tidal wave of tax revenue that far eclipsed projections by both the White House and the Congressional Budget Office. As if by magic, budget deficits disappeared and turned into surpluses.

For the most part, the Congressional forecasts missed the mark by less than 4 percent from 1982 until 1995. But starting in 1996, when the dot-com frenzy erupted in earnest, the agency began undershooting by as much as 9.5 percent. In 1996, tax revenues came in $93 billion higher than expected; in 1997, they were $163 billion higher; in 1999, they were $152 billion higher.

When the dot-com bubble popped in 2001, and the economy slid into a brief recession, tax revenues plunged $308 billion below what the Congressional Budget Office had predicted and remained depressed for the next three years.

NOW the pendulum is swinging once again. Corporate tax payments, which plunged more than $70 billion from 2000 to 2003, could hit a new record of $332 billion this year. Capital gains taxes could climb back from a low of $50 billion in 2003 to $75 billion this year.

Few budget analysts would say the jump in revenues is bad news. But if the last decade is any indication, it would be foolish to count on more of the same.

The Bush administration has quietly acknowledged the point. Its latest estimate anticipates that tax revenues will be almost flat in 2007 and that the deficit will widen to $339 billion.

But only if things turn out as expected.

From my post on 10-09-2006.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...08&postcount=1
Year GDP Revenue Spending Surplus/Deficit
1993 ______1,154.5 1,409.5 -300.4

2000 9,817 2,025.5 1,789.2 86.4
2001 10,128 1,991.4 1,863.2 -32.4
2002 10,470 1,853.4 2,011.2 -317.4
2003 10,971 1,782.5 2,160.1 -538.4
2004 11,734 1,880.3 2,293.0 -568.0
2005 12,487 2,153.9 2,472.2 -493.6

Deficits in right column, above, do not include "off budget" appropriatins.....
GDP growth 2000-2005, 27% total, 4.9%/year.
Revenue growth 2000-2005, 6.3% total, 1.2%/year.
Spending growth 2000-2005, 38% total, 6.7%/year....

Quote:

By Lucinda Harper
Publication title:
Wall Street Journal
More options ↓

Higher Taxes Unlikely to Hurt Recovery --- Economists See Minor Impact on Consumer Spending
New York, N.Y.: Dec 22, 1993
Abstract (Summary)

Although the tax rise will take some zest out of consumer spending, mainstream economists say it poses no serious threat to the recovery. They say that unlike former President Bush's tax increases, which hit a slowing economy, President Clinton's tax rise comes during an expansion. The added taxes on the wealthy, they say, will damp things, but at a time when the economy can absorb the setback.

The tax rise didn't pass Congress until August, but the income-tax increases are retroactive to Jan. 1, 1993; the increases apply to couples with taxable income over $140,000, after deductions, and individuals with income over $115,000. Taking account of all the income and other tax increases, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that families making more than $200,000 annually will be socked with an average of 17.4% more in taxes, or $24,000. The fear is that when wealthy people sit down to do their taxes next year, they will be shocked to find out how much they owe and suddenly stop spending -- hurting a recovery that's finally gaining momentum.

Besides, the wealthy tend to dip into savings to help pay for a higher tax bill, unlike the less affluent who immediately cut spending and slow the economy. Donald Ratajczak, head of economic forecasting at Georgia State University, estimates that well-off people will tap their savings to pay for half of the added taxes, paying for the rest by cutting purchases.

Just how much will the Clinton tax increase on the most well-off Americans hurt the economic recovery?

Although the tax rise will take some zest out of consumer spending, mainstream economists say it poses no serious threat to the recovery. They say that unlike former President Bush's tax increases, which hit a slowing economy, President Clinton's tax rise comes during an expansion. The added taxes on the wealthy, they say, will damp things, but at a time when the economy can absorb the setback.

A dissenting view comes from supply-side economists, who argue the tax on the rich will lead to lower investment and productivity, trends that, over time, would make the U.S. less competitive.

The tax rise didn't pass Congress until August, but the income-tax increases are retroactive to Jan. 1, 1993; the increases apply to couples with taxable income over $140,000, after deductions, and individuals with income over $115,000. Taking account of all the income and other tax increases, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that families making more than $200,000 annually will be socked with an average of 17.4% more in taxes, or $24,000. The fear is that when wealthy people sit down to do their taxes next year, they will be shocked to find out how much they owe and suddenly stop spending -- hurting a recovery that's finally gaining momentum.

"The April tax payment date may have a shock effect," warns Kurt Karl, chief economist for WEFA Group in suburban Philadelphia. Manhattan and Beverly Hills are two areas where a large group of taxpayers will be hit.

But economists don't think the economy will be set back far. For one thing, the number of people hit by the tax increase is quite small. Only 1.4 million taxpayers -- that's about 1.2% -- are affected by the increase on the wealthy. So, while those writing the checks may feel a burden, the nation as a whole will be relatively unscathed.

Furthermore, the tax rise, expected to raise about $20 billion annually to help lower the budget deficit, is equal to only 0.4% of all personal income. Meanwhile, the expected drop in the deficit has helped lower interest rates, a change that leaves many people -- including the wealthy -- with more money to spend or invest.

Besides, the wealthy tend to dip into savings to help pay for a higher tax bill, unlike the less affluent who immediately cut spending and slow the economy. Donald Ratajczak, head of economic forecasting at Georgia State University, estimates that well-off people will tap their savings to pay for half of the added taxes, paying for the rest by cutting purchases.

"You couldn't pick a better group to put this tax on," Mr. Ratajczak says. "They probably didn't vote for Clinton and there are not enough of them to severely crimp the expansion." And President Clinton, in an effort to limit the negative effects of the tax, has given Americans three years to pay for the increase, interest-free.

Mr. Ratajczak's forecast for growth in the first-quarter is a 3.2% annual rate and for the second-quarter, a 2.1% rate. He estimates that if there were no new tax on the wealthy, growth would be at a 3.5% rate in the first-quarter and 3.0% in the second. For the year, he predicts that the added taxes will bring growth to 2.8%, down from 3.2%, assuming all other factors -- including the lower interest rates -- were unchanged.

Most economists estimate that the tax will do the most damage in the first half of next year as wealthy consumers cut spending to help cushion the blow of a higher tax bill. "The economy will only be affected in a noticeable way in the first half of the year," says Mr. Karl, who estimates that the economy will grow at an annual rate of 2.7% for the first-quarter, rather than 3.0%, if there were no tax increase.

But supply-siders see things differently. "This is going to have a corrosive, corrosive effect" on the economy, says Lawrence Kudlow, chief economist at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York.

Rich people have a high propensity for savings and investment, and Mr. Kudlow says that will be crimped by the new tax.

The result, he argues, will be lower productivity. Mr. Kudlow estimates that the potential long-term growth rate of the economy will be lowered to 2.25% annually, from 2.7%.

"The tax increase is also coming as Asia and Latin America are lowering their tax rates and so will be becoming more competitive with America," Mr. Kudlow says.

There have been some obvious benefits from the tax boost. Lower interest rates have prompted thousands of people to refinance their homes, cut mortgage payments and use the extra money to buy cars, furniture and appliances. In that sense, the tax increase is "a wash for the nation as a whole," says Roger Brinner, director of U.S. forecasting for Data Resources Inc. in Lexington, Mass.

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AB0994DB494D81
SALES IN NOVEMBER OF EXISTING HOMES HIT A RECORD PACE
Jr.,, ROBERT D. HERSHEY.

Dec 30, 1993

Special to The New York Times

Spurred by growing confidence in the economy and a fear that low interest rates may not last, Americans snapped up single-family homes in November at the fastest pace ever recorded, the National Association of Realtors announced today.

Sales of existing homes in November ran at an annual rate of 4.21 million homes. That rate, which is statistically adjusted for seasonal variations, was 2.9 percent higher than in October and 9.1 percent ahead of the November 1992 pace.

The previous record, set in November 1978, was an annualized rate of 4.15 million home sales.

This higher-than-expected activity reinforced optimism that the economy would continue to expand at a brisk pace in the new year, a prospect also reflected in a separate set of figures issued today showing a five-tenths of 1 percent rise in the Government's main forecasting index. 'Interesting Numbers'

The composite index of leading indicators has now climbed four straight months after managing only one gain in the first seven months of the year. Composed of items that tend to move ahead of the economy at large, like orders for manufactured goods, the Commerce Department index is designed to peer six months or more into the future.

"These are interesting numbers, especially the home sales," Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist for the PNC Bank in Pittsburgh, said. Forget about a possible early 1994 slump from tax increases, weak exports and military cutbacks, he advised, adding, "All's clear on the recession watch."

The strength of the broad, current economy was confirmed by the Commerce Department's index of coincident indicators, which also posted a gain of five-tenths of 1 percent last month -- its fourth consecutive advance.

But since most of the index's components had been previously published, the bulk of the attention today went to the housing report. While sales of existing homes do not have the economic impact of building new ones, they do mean strong sales of items like drapes, paint and appliances, as well as business for lenders, lawyers, real estate agents, appraisers, moving companies and various kinds of insurers. The Government will issue its report Thursday on November sales of new homes.

November marked the seventh sales advance in the latest eight months and the highest since the real estate group began keeping records in 1968.

All regions of the country except the West contributed to the new sales record, which was a result not only of 20-year lows in interest rates but of an improved job market, rising consumer confidence, gains in income and relative stability in the price of houses.

"Month by month, I think the public has gotten more confident," said P. Wesley Foster Jr., president and owner of Long & Foster Realtors, which is based in Fairfax, Va., and is the nation's third-largest real estate concern. "When interest rates bottomed out and started kicking up, people really got busy," Mr. Foster said.

The national average commitment rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages was 7.16 percent in November, down from 8.31 percent a year earlier but somewhat above late-summer lows.

Mr. Foster said that after the first quarter, when his company's sales were 10 to 12 percent below those a year earlier, the company had posted quarterly gains of 18 to 25 percent for the rest of the year. He said he expected strong sales to continue. Median Price of Homes

The median price of homes sold last month was $106,800, up $200 from the October level but below the $109,300 in June that was the highest so far this year.

Month to month fluctuations, however, are heavily affected by what kinds of buyers are active and do not necessarily indicate the overall direction of prices. Still, the recent price data tend to confirm a belief that the sales surge is concentrated among first-time buyers moving from apartments.

For his company, Mr. Foster said, first-time home buyers accounted for about 48 percent of recent sales compared with the traditional proportion of about one-third.

By region, the Midwest posted a November sales gain of 7.3 percent, to an annual rate of 1.17 million. It was followed by the Northeast, up 4.9 percent to 640,000, and the South, up 4.1 percent to 1.53 million. The decline in the West was 4.3 percent, to a rate of 880,000, the report showed.

These numbers include a factor for typical seasonal variations, such as higher sales volume during the summer that reflect favorable weather and a desire by many families to minimize their children's school disruption. But analysts caution that these adjustments can sometimes distort results, particularly those that are then annualized by assuming that a monthly pace continues for a full year.

Nevertheless, the association's criterion that it takes several months to establish a trend has now clearly been met.

Actual sales last month, with no adjustment, were 140,000 in the South, 75,000 in the Midwest, 65,000 in the West and 43,000 in the Northeast.

The Commerce Department's forecasting index was impressive not only in its string of four straight increases but in its sustained breadth. Eight of the 11 components contributed to the November advance, paced by lower first-time claims for unemployment benefits, higher orders for new plants and equipment and a rise in the price of materials especially sensitive to the business cycle. Other Gains

Other elements helping to push up the index were a rise in building permits, higher backlogs for manufactured durable goods, an expanded work week, a higher money supply and manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials.

Negative forces were lower consumer expectations, which were reversed in December; faster deliveries to companies by their suppliers, and stock prices as gauged by the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

The department's companion index of lagging indicators that move only after a turn in the economy eased two-tenths of 1 percent last month, the fourth consecutive month without a rise.

http://www.franceaccountants.com/tax...ates_in_France

...income tax and social security percentages paid in France....and isn't the result a universal and earlier and more financially secure retirement, as well as life during the pre-retirement years, and a 20 percent lower national poverty rate ?