The Drum Corps Discussion Group
Presented by The Sound Machine Drum Corps Scores Archive

Links to Other Sites: 

* FAQ   * Search   * Login   * Register 
It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:40 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Taxes??????!
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:51 pm 
Offline
Director
Director
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 6:13 pm
Posts: 654
Location: Upland, CA
What will really happen to our taxes if Obama wins the Presidency?

The Dems have said they will allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire. Why? They claim they give too many breaks to the wealthy. But do these tax cuts actually work? The fact is that government revenues increased after the tax cuts, but spending increased even more. So which is the real culprit?

What happens to our economy if the Dems are totally wrong and they let these cuts expire and raise spending even more? I only hear Dems talk about the "relief" they want to bring to low income families, I never hear from them how it will actually work. All the economists I have heard from say it won't! Who will pay the ultimate price if the Dems policies all go wrong? (Which I think they will...)

Can anyone show me where in the past that income tax or capital gain tax increases ever actually increased government revenues?

One source I found on the net: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm956.cfm

I found lots of articles written by the liberal media claiming how unfair these tax cuts are, but one thing is always missing from their articles.... they NEVER claim that the tax cuts reduce government revenues. In other words, they never claim that the tax cuts don't work! If they work by increasing revenues, why are they unfair?

Lots of questions.... now I'll wait for the words to fly... :duck:

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
The Sound Machine


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes??????!
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:43 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Posts: 3791
Location: Poway, CA
Bandmaster wrote:
Can anyone show me where in the past that income tax or capital gain tax increases ever actually increased government revenues?

Sure thing. Please look up the following:
* Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968
* Tax Reform Act of 1969
* Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980
* Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
* Highway Revenue Act of 1982
* Social Security Amendments of 1983
* Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
* Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
* Tax Reform Act of 1986
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

Next question?

Bandmaster wrote:
I found lots of articles written by the liberal media claiming how unfair these tax cuts are, but one thing is always missing from their articles.... they NEVER claim that the tax cuts reduce government revenues. In other words, they never claim that the tax cuts don't work! If they work by increasing revenues, why are they unfair?

Okay, here you go: tax cuts reduce government revenues. Why do you think the U.S. is at an all-time deficit high even as spending for the War on Iraq has been scaled back? The vast majority of the time, tax cuts do not work in terms of increasing federal revenue and only extend the national deficit. Here's a list of tax acts that CUT taxes and DECREASED (not increased) revenue:
* Revenue Act of 1971
* Tax Reduction Act of 1975
* Tax Reconciliation Act of 1976
* Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977
* Revenue Act of 1978
* Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
* Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983
* Tax Relief Act of 1997
* Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
* Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
* Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
* Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004
* American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
* Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

Source: U.S. Treasury Department. Search their site and you can find the same info I did.

Also, here's a short essay on how tax cuts hurt government revenue.

P.S.: Dave, you never responded to my PM. Shall I resend it?

_________________
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:43 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
Tax Policy Center is probably the best place to look for a detailed breakdown of each plan and what effect each will/might have. Both plans are bad. Obama increases taxes on the top 2% way too much. And he gives way too much in regards to senior citizens. And with McCain's plan, the government will lose just too much needed revenue. I agree it will encourage economic growth. But considering the state we are in right now, there's no way to tell when that may occur. We would also have to gain 7 trillion in 10 years to just stay even with the loss of tax revenues. Job growth will help, but government spending is projected to go WAY UP.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone will devestate our federal budget. I don't think some people realize how much trouble we're about to be in. Right now they take up around 8.5 % of GDP. But by 2050 they will take up 18.6%. Which is close to our entire federal budget right now. They already absorb 42% of our federal budget, and that percentage is growing 7% a year. We also will be speding huge amounts of money for two wars. And let not forget our infrastrucutre is in serious trouble..And the estimated cost right now for fixing it is over a trillion dollars. Something that also concerns me is NASA funding. Neither has mentioned it and the funding is running very low. Right now we are still ahead of the world, but it is estimated we will fall behind China and Russia if we do not act soon to increase funding and research. Sorry, but that isn't acceptable. I'm not one of those "we have to be the best at everything type of people". But this could have a direct impact on National Security. And some national security experts have made this very clear. So under each tax plan, my question is, where will you get the money to fix all the problems? Economic growth from cutting taxes will only help marginally. The Federal Reserve on cutting taxes to help growth:

"Economic growth leads to higher wages and profits and thus increases tax receipts, but higher wages also imply increased Social Security benefits, as those benefits are tied to wages. Higher incomes also tend to increase the demand for medical services so that, indirectly, higher incomes may also increase federal health expenditures."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taxes??????!
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:16 am 
Offline
Director
Director
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 6:13 pm
Posts: 654
Location: Upland, CA
Hostrauser wrote:
Bandmaster wrote:
Can anyone show me where in the past that income tax or capital gain tax increases ever actually increased government revenues?

Sure thing. Please look up the following:
* Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968
* Tax Reform Act of 1969
* Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980
* Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
* Highway Revenue Act of 1982
* Social Security Amendments of 1983
* Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
* Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
* Tax Reform Act of 1986
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

Next question?

These are ALL income tax or capital gain tax acts? Are you sure about that?

* Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 - only a tempory surcharge to raise $10 billion
* Tax Reform Act of 1969 - lowered the maximum rate on earned income from 70 percent to 50 percent
* Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 - not income tax or capital gain tax
* Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - not income tax or capital gain tax
* Highway Revenue Act of 1982 - not income tax or capital gain tax
* Social Security Amendments of 1983 - not income tax or capital gain tax
* Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 - not income tax and reduced capital gain tax
* Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 - not income tax or capital gain tax
* Tax Reform Act of 1986 - often referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts"
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 - not income tax or capital gain tax
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 - not income tax or capital gain tax
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 - increased income tax rate, but did it actually raise revenues?
* Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Clinton's big tax increase, but during a greatly growing economy. Did revenues go up?


Hostrauser wrote:
Bandmaster wrote:
I found lots of articles written by the liberal media claiming how unfair these tax cuts are, but one thing is always missing from their articles.... they NEVER claim that the tax cuts reduce government revenues. In other words, they never claim that the tax cuts don't work! If they work by increasing revenues, why are they unfair?

Okay, here you go: tax cuts reduce government revenues. Why do you think the U.S. is at an all-time deficit high even as spending for the War on Iraq has been scaled back? The vast majority of the time, tax cuts do not work in terms of increasing federal revenue and only extend the national deficit. Here's a list of tax acts that CUT taxes and DECREASED (not increased) revenue:
* Revenue Act of 1971
* Tax Reduction Act of 1975
* Tax Reconciliation Act of 1976
* Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977
* Revenue Act of 1978
* Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
* Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983
* Tax Relief Act of 1997
* Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
* Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
* Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
* Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004
* American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
* Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

Are any of these the Bush Tax Cuts? I was asking about those in particular! Why are the Bush Tax Cuts unfair if they worked?

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
The Sound Machine


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:04 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=491_5WxfcgI&NR=1

Pretty funny video of a Penn & Teller type response to Obama's tax plan. Warning. . .some offensive language. Pretty funny in this clip to see even Charles Gibson really hammering Obama about his ideas.

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:02 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
I still haven't seen any proof of economic growth resulting directly from the Bush tax cuts. Big Tax Cuts work if you have a balance budget or a surplus. See JKF's plan and look at the federal budget at the time. But when you have an insane deficit, they make NO sense. Now here's an article written by the Brookings Institute in 2003 on enacting the Bush 03 Tax Plan. And considering our deficit now, and our economic crisis, I don't think it would be a good idea to contiune the Bush tax cuts.



"Having pushed big tax cuts in 2001 and 2002, and another one now in 2003, the Bush administration has adopted a series of mantras in response to the fiscal debacle: It's not our fault; even if it is our fault, it is not a big problem; and even if it is a big problem, the solution is more tax cuts. These claims have become increasingly outlandish as time marches on.


The second mantra—that deficits don't really matter—goes against economic theory, evidence and common sense. Along with many other economists, we believe that there is compelling evidence that projected future budget deficits raise interest rates. Those who share this belief include Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, whom Bush nominated to be head of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Indeed, the council recently reported that a sustained deficit of 1 percent of gross domestic product would raise rates by a third of a percentage point. One implication is that the Bush tax cuts will eventually raise rates by more than half a percentage point—increasing payments by about $700 a year on a $150,000 mortgage. Another implication is that the 2001 tax cut raised interest rates enough to reduce investment and hurt long-term growth.

But even if deficits don't affect interest rates at all, there is a real cost to long-term deficits. To see why, think of a family that borrows lots of money to take a vacation. It may run up its credit card balances so much that lenders charge higher interest rates on additional borrowing. But even without a higher rate, the family has a debt to repay. The borrowing effectively places a mortgage on the family's future income and thereby reduces its future living standards.

The same thing is true for the country as a whole. Budget deficits reduce the country's national saving, which reduces the assets owned by Americans and so reduces our future national income. The reduction in future national income is effectively a "debt tax," which is the main reason why Greenspan and other economists are concerned about budget deficits.

"If you get significant increases in deficits that produce a rise in interest rates, you will be significantly undercutting the benefits derived from the tax cuts," Greenspan said recently.

What about the third mantra? If tax cuts cause deficits, and deficits hurt the economy in the long term, can tax cuts be the best way out of the current mess? Despite the administration's own estimates that show its tax cuts would dig substantial fiscal holes well into the future, the president and other administration officials argue that tax cuts will actually help restore the budget surplus. Their claim is that cutting taxes would cause the economy to grow so rapidly that we would more than make up for the revenue lost from the tax cut in the first place.

There are two problems with this claim. Most importantly, no credible economist believes it. Even President Bush's own Council of Economic Advisers has written that the tax cuts would make the budget deficit worse. And, ironically, two years ago, when there were big surpluses, the president himself argued that we needed tax cuts because they reduce revenue, not raise it. Tax cuts, of course, can raise economic growth by encouraging people to work harder and save more. But those effects are not big enough in the president's proposals to more than offset the effect of the debt tax that would also be created—let alone by enough to have the tax cut pay for itself.

The president's reckless approach to tax cuts is a huge fiscal gamble. It benefits the wealthy, but would impose new and increasing burdens on low-income households and future generations, and it is unlikely to succeed in restoring broad-based economic growth and financial discipline. The sooner fiscal sanity is restored, the better."

This article was written by:
William Gale-Director of the Economic Studies Program for Brookings..Co-director of the Tax Policy Center. And served under George H.W Bush.
Peter Orszag-Director of the U.S Congressional Budget Office. Serves as deputy director for Brookings. And served under Bill Clinton.

That's in regards to the Bush/McCain tax cut..And trust me, I'm against the Obama Tax cut just as much..But for different reasons. Both plans are bad though.


Last edited by SCVStar on Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:03 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
LAMystreaux wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=491_5WxfcgI&NR=1

Pretty funny video of a Penn & Teller type response to Obama's tax plan. Warning. . .some offensive language. Pretty funny in this clip to see even Charles Gibson really hammering Obama about his ideas.


That was pretty funny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:03 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
Again, I can't really follow a lot of what's being said. I do however know one thing, if they have billions of dollars to give to millionaires, & billions of dollars to bail out homeowners, then they should have enough to cut out me having to pay income tax.................Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:32 pm 
Offline
Director
Director
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 6:13 pm
Posts: 654
Location: Upland, CA
The Bush Tax Cuts did their intended job. They spurred the economy, brought us out of the "almost" recession we were going into back in 2000-2001, and greatly increased government revenues. But the big problem was that the Republican Congress decided to act like Democrats on steroids and spent money faster the the increased revenues could bring it in. The President's big mistake was to not tell Congress to cool it and stop spending money.

But if thought the misguided Republicans spent a lot of money, just wait until Harry and Nancy have a President with a "D" behind his name letting them run rampant in D.C. :( Mark my words, get ready for an extended financial down turn!

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
The Sound Machine


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:47 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
Bandmaster wrote:
The Bush Tax Cuts did their intended job. They spurred the economy, brought us out of the "almost" recession we were going into back in 2000-2001, and greatly increased government revenues. But the big problem was that the Republican Congress decided to act like Democrats on steroids and spent money faster the the increased revenues could bring it in. The President's big mistake was to not tell Congress to cool it and stop spending money.

But if thought the misguided Republicans spent a lot of money, just wait until Harry and Nancy have a President with a "D" behind his name letting them run rampant in D.C. :( Mark my words, get ready for an extended financial down turn!


We'll have to agree to disagree on the Bush tax cuts..Bush said they were entended to balance the budget, yet they did not..Also, the first Bush tax cut actually lost jobs in regards to employment to population ratio. After the second tax cut, the economy started to do well..And the ratio on jobs went up. Although the jobs created didn't pay as well as the jobs we lost. So average wages went down. The second tax cut also took place right before the housing boom we had. Which in turn helped give a boost to the economy.
I would be shocked if Obama governed from the far left. It would make no sense to do so. And despite my disagreement with him on most issues, Obama is still a very smart guy..And it would be dumb to come in and shift to the far left. We live in a moderate right nation. And I'm sure he knows that. Even Clinton knew that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:37 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
SCVStar wrote:
I would be shocked if Obama governed from the far left. It would make no sense to do so. And despite my disagreement with him on most issues, Obama is still a very smart guy..And it would be dumb to come in and shift to the far left. We live in a moderate right nation. And I'm sure he knows that. Even Clinton knew that.


Yes, he certainly knows that as evidenced by his campaign. My concern is that I wonder if he can be trusted to maintain this stance, which seems less to the left than I believe his record indicates, or will he indeed revert to his true self? For instance his stated support for Israel. Conventional wisdom says that support for Israel is a "must" for a presidential candidate. Knowing that, is his stated support real or another campaign tactic?

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:31 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
SCVStar wrote:
I would be shocked if Obama governed from the far left. It would make no sense to do so. And despite my disagreement with him on most issues, Obama is still a very smart guy..And it would be dumb to come in and shift to the far left. We live in a moderate right nation. And I'm sure he knows that. Even Clinton knew that.


Yes, he certainly knows that as evidenced by his campaign. My concern is that I wonder if he can be trusted to maintain this stance, which seems less to the left than I believe his record indicates, or will he indeed revert to his true self? For instance his stated support for Israel. Conventional wisdom says that support for Israel is a "must" for a presidential candidate. Knowing that, is his stated support real or another campaign tactic?


Well given how much he seems to be hiding, I would guess the latter. I expect many of his less left leaning promises to be broken.

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:19 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
I understand I sound like a broken record. However, after reading most of these posts I am conviinced voting for Barr is the correct choice...................Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:49 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
Blurae1 wrote:
I understand I sound like a broken record. However, after reading most of these posts I am conviinced voting for Barr is the correct choice...................Bill


He's got my vote also..Although I'm not a fan of his tax plan either. Here's the thing that gets me about taxes. People try to make it a left vs right argument. And it's been that way for years, yet history shows us otherwise. Obama's tax plan is very progressive in that it will tax the rich more while helping the middle class. The President who pushed for the first progressive tax plan was one of the republican party's finest Presidents: Theodore Roosevelt. He endorsed a big increase on taxes for the rich. He's the one who pushed for the estate tax. And I think the people who call Obama a socialist should realize what a progressive tax system is. Even T.R. was called a socialist by some. And here's what he said regarding that:

"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood."


Also, the largest tax cut since WWII was endorsed by a liberal democrat..JFK's tax cut, which was later pushed by Johnson and passed, was larger than both the Reagan and Bush cuts. You would have to combined all the Bush Tax cuts to pass JFK's. And then it would still be close. And if you adjust for inflation, JFK's tax cut helped the rich more than the Bush tax cut.

Ronald Reagan (in my opinion the greatest President of our time) actually introduced a tax reform which helped the poor a great deal. He pushed for the ZBA, which allowed for the poor and low income families to not even pay income taxes. His tax plan helped the poor and low income families more than any other..And he was a Republican.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:51 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
SCVStar wrote:
Blurae1 wrote:
I understand I sound like a broken record. However, after reading most of these posts I am conviinced voting for Barr is the correct choice...................Bill


He's got my vote also..Although I'm not a fan of his tax plan either. Here's the thing that gets me about taxes. People try to make it a left vs right argument. And it's been that way for years, yet history shows us otherwise. Obama's tax plan is very progressive in that it will tax the rich more while helping the middle class. The President who pushed for the first progressive tax plan was one of the republican party's finest Presidents: Theodore Roosevelt. He endorsed a big increase on taxes for the rich. He's the one who pushed for the estate tax. And I think the people who call Obama a socialist should realize what a progressive tax system is. Even T.R. was called a socialist by some. And here's what he said regarding that:

"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood."


Also, the largest tax cut since WWII was endorsed by a liberal democrat..JFK's tax cut, which was later pushed by Johnson and passed, was larger than both the Reagan and Bush cuts. You would have to combined all the Bush Tax cuts to pass JFK's. And then it would still be close. And if you adjust for inflation, JFK's tax cut helped the rich more than the Bush tax cut.

Ronald Reagan (in my opinion the greatest President of our time) actually introduced a tax reform which helped the poor a great deal. He pushed for the ZBA, which allowed for the poor and low income families to not even pay income taxes. His tax plan helped the poor and low income families more than any other..And he was a Republican.


Does Obama have in any part of his plan safeguards to keep the rich from passing on their extra taxes to the rest of us?

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group