Is America Taxed too Much?

[TE999]

If you're dependent on government assistance, taxes are of no consequence as others pay them.

If you're reasonably well off and feel guilty because others aren't then you don't mind paying taxes to help them.

If you're in business and taxes are preventing you from growing your business then you feel that you're overtaxed.

If you make a good living, have a family with the attendant obligations and resent the government taking more of the money you earned to continue it's profligacy you do think you're overtaxed.

It's not as much a matter of being taxed, but what's done with the money in Washington. Maintaining a strong national defense is a good use of tax money...bailing out banks, insurance companies and automobile manufacturers is a waste of tax money.

The lower the tax rates, the more revenue that is generated. Keynes was dead wrong.

 

[Katyusha]

Surprise that was the Bush tax cuts that are still in effect for 2009. Obama had nothing to do with it! He is going to let them expire so in 2010 expect a big increase over 2009.

The truth of that is that Congress has had seven years to make them permanent and they didn't. If I recall correctly Bush asked them many times to make the cuts permanent and they wouldn't do it. I'd be careful about saying that their expiration at the end of this year is due to Obama.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]The lower the tax rates, the more revenue that is generated. Keynes was dead wrong.

The facts don't support this idea. Yet, anti-tax idiots keep insisting it's true. On what basis? Who knows?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The facts don't support this idea. Yet, anti-tax idiots keep insisting it's true. On what basis? Who knows?

The low taxes during the Clinton years produced huge revenues but that was because the economy was growing insanely fast as businesses all over the country digitized. Not only did that do great things for the computer related industries but the improved productivity that resulted generated huge profits. No wonder revenue increased! But until the Next Big Thing comes along, we won't see that whether the taxes are high or low. Hopefully the Green Economy is it but who knows?

 

[Huckleman2000]

The low taxes during the Clinton years produced huge revenues but that was because the economy was growing insanely fast as businesses all over the country digitized. Not only did that do great things for the computer related industries but the improved productivity that resulted generated huge profits. No wonder revenue increased! But until the Next Big Thing comes along, we won't see that whether the taxes are high or low. Hopefully the Green Economy is it but who knows?

Clinton raised taxes in 1993.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The facts don't support this idea. Yet, anti-tax idiots keep insisting it's true. On what basis? Who knows?

And you always insist the facts don't support this or that, yet provide no proof!

All I know is what I have seen, experienced over my life. When taxes are cut, life is good and I can provide for my family and spend a little more at those free enterprise establishments. When taxes go up, life sucks and I can't provide as much for my family as I'd like too. I also cut back on my spending at those free enterprise establishments.

Raise taxes, corporations don't make as much thus pay less in taxes. Raise taxes and people are out of work, not buying and now no longer paying those taxes.

Lower taxes, corporation make more and pay more in taxes. Lower taxes and unemployment will drop as companies hire more people because they don't have such a big tax burden. Lower taxes and now there are more people paying taxes.

The bigger you tax base is the more you collect. The more you collect the more you can do! Raising taxes on the evil, filthy rich does not increase your tax base, in point of fact it could just lower that tax base as those that care the burden might just decide it's time to retire so they no longer make those big bucks and their tax burden decreases.

Have you ever heard the old adage "You can squeeze blood from a stone."

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The truth of that is that Congress has had seven years to make them permanent and they didn't. If I recall correctly Bush asked them many times to make the cuts permanent and they wouldn't do it. I'd be careful about saying that their expiration at the end of this year is due to Obama.

And Obama has said he won't ask congress to make them permanent. I don't think I said it was his fault, only that he intends to let them expire.

I really wish people would read what I type!

 

[Huckleman2000]

And you always insist the facts don't support this or that, yet provide no proof![...]

Here you go:

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz0lbp9zirF

 

[TE999]

The facts don't support this idea. Yet, anti-tax idiots keep insisting it's true. On what basis? Who knows?

Whatever those facts may be they fly in the face of common sense. What sort of incentive is there in trying to succeed when what you earn is confiscated by the government. Sure, some people will continue on no matter what, but soon they'll find a way to get around the system to keep more of what they earn. If taxes are lowered, people keep more of their money, but because of that they earn more and pay more taxes but at a lower rate so the money rolls in.

The reason the economic recovery isn't is because of the record spending in Washinton and the taxes looming on the horizon such as Cap and Trade, Global Warming crackdowns on industry and universal health care. Businesses are waiting to see how the chips fall before expanding and/or hiring more employees.

Higher taxes are a major disincentive to growth, but a boon to growth of government.

 

[PandoraGlitters]

I have yet to see any proof that lowering taxes on corporations means that the money they save will somehow trickle down to the pockets of the American Majority (i.e. those folks who live on far, far less than $200,000 per year).

I love rich people. Don't get me wrong. They earned the money and they should be able to spend it once they pay taxes. (Is it just me hearing the ghost of Leona Helmsley?)

The real issue is how we spend that tax money. I just think that maybe instead of being able to blow up the world 36 times over, maybe 2 or 3 times would suffice and we could sink some of that tax money into, oh I don't know. The future? Green energy? Smaller teacher/student ratios (since we expect teachers to both instruct and actually parent our children these days, seems only fair).

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Here you go:

Of course those tax cuts haven't paid for themselves, the unemployment rate was already on the rise to unprecedented highs, how could you collect more if the workers aren't working to pay them? You have to wait it out, not increase them.

And like I previously posted...when taxes were lower, I was employed to pay them. Now that they are going up I'm not. So how is the that collecting more? If the tax base shrinks the more you raise taxes, you're in a never ending cycle. A death spiral to doomsday.

And there isn't an economist alive who knows what's going to happen tomorrow. And I don't either, nor do you. So whatever we, they say is total bullshit until it happens and hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I have yet to see any proof that lowering taxes on corporations means that the money they save will somehow trickle down to the pockets of the American Majority (i.e. those folks who live on far, far less than $200,000 per year).

First, lower taxes on Corporation that produce products or sell products produced would mean lower prices as 22% of the price is tax.

Second, Corporation don't pay taxes, individuals pay taxes. The corporation will include the income taxes they anticipate in the price of the the item they sell. Tax on corporations go down the price of the item goes down. Just as fuel costs drive prices up when the cost of fuel is high, the prices lower just as fast as the price of fuel.

Now there will those on this board who say it doesn't but it does. All it takes is on company to lower their prices to garner more business and the rest will follow or they will lose business.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Whatever those facts may be they fly in the face of common sense. [...]

Well, what does that say about your "common sense"?
Facts don't have an ideology.

You'll notice that it's your sainted Republican politicians that are saying taxcuts increase revenues, not their economists.

Why do you believe politicians when their own advisors don't agree with the claims they make? Just because it sounds like "common sense"?

 

[PandoraGlitters]

First, lower taxes on Corporation that produce products or sell products produced would mean lower prices as 22% of the price is tax.

This is argument, not proof. Any law, whether of science, mathematics or economics, should be able to be proven through precedent.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

This is argument, not proof. Any law, whether of science, mathematics or economics, should be able to be proven through precedent.

Well let's see...provide proof that what I say is incorrect?

But I can provide an example...

Not so long ago there was a 7% surcharge on airline tickets that expired. The airlines got together and decided that they would still charge that 7% and keep it for themselves. The day it expired an independent airline lowered it's prices by 7%, within hours all the airlines had lowered their prices by the same 7%. It just takes one company, corporation to drive the others to do the same thing.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Well let's see...provide proof that what I say is incorrect?

I just did. The Chairman of Bush's own Council of Economic advisors "devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Find us an Economist who thinks you're right.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I just did. The Chairman of Bush's own Council of Economic advisors "devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Find us an Economist who thinks you're right.

I hate to reiterate....

And there isn't an economist alive who knows what's going to happen tomorrow. And I don't either, nor do you. So whatever we, they say is total bullshit until it happens and hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[PoppingTom]

I thought it was higher, but didn't know. What is the average German work-week? I did read an article a while ago on the issues that VW was facing, but that's pretty microscopic.

How do you think you might be able to reduced bureaucratic weight and the red-tape and loop-holes it generates?

Oh, and can I ask one more really nosey question? A long time ago, a German citizen's part was to paid 100DM/yr into the national healthcare system for that coverage. Is it still the same? If not, how is it different today? Again, it could google, but that gets so old, and I love hearing from a living, breathing person.

Thanks.

1. It was higher. I only want to give an example. If you got a family with more than 4 children, you don't have to pay any rent at all, that's what I know.

2. The average work week is 37,5 hours. VW and companies with strong unions have 35 hours, people in East Germany have most of the time 40 hours. My work depends on the customer, but it's most of the time 37,5 hours.

3. I don't know if bureaucracy willl ever be reduced dramatically. Nearly everybody have a strong need of a tax advisor, so easier tax laws means less jobs. So it will always be a step-to-step change

4. 100 DM/year for the healthcare system is a bit low. I got the governments healtcare insurance, have to pay 10% of my wage. I got a 900 Euro job and pay 92 euro healthcare insurance.

 

[Pure]

?

Seb said And don't forget all those ObamaTaxes that will soon go into effect. In some cases Americans pay over 60% of their income to taxes. And that's not counting the embedded taxes in the price of things you buy.

pure: be specific. aside from the upper 10%, whose taxes have already gone up, and how much? whose taxes will go up, and how much?

the US is quite insane to be debating this topic; one side wants social welfare schemes paid with taxes, and the other wants military spending financed by borrowing, calling that 'low taxes'.

people do not debate WHAT the gov't should do, e.g. repair bridges; just the insane focus on (talk about) SIZE of gov. i would like to know in the last 50 years, what Republican Pres has overseen reductions in the size of gov't [one evidence of which would be reduced spending, or budget increases less than inflation.]

"size of gov't" (small gov't) talk by Republicans is 90% bogus.

 

[DeeZire]

Obama Tax hikes to date:

The stimulus, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, included tax cuts for many Americans, Obama said.

"We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses," Obama said. "We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college."

Democrats applauded, while Republicans were silent for the most part. In one of the unscripted moments of the night, Obama looked at the Republican side of the room, smiled and said, "I thought I'd get some applause on that one."

Here, we wanted to check Obama's statement that he cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.

The key word in his statement is "working." Obama's claim is based on a tax cut intended to offset payroll taxes. Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009.

The tax cut was part of Obama's campaign promises. During the campaign, Obama said he wanted $500 for each worker and $1,000 for working couples. Since the final number was a bit less than he promised, we rated his promise a Compromise on our Obameter, where we rate Obama's campaign promises for fulfillment.

During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut.

Oops. Obama hasn't raised taxes, he's lowered them.

In Zeb's first post, he mentions that 66% of Americans think they pay too much in taxes. A couple of years ago, over 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was to blame for 9/11. All these polls show is how incredibly stupid 66% of Americans are.

 

[JackLuis]

It all VooDoo economics.

I understand that the Treasury Department put in a requisition for 500 Red and 400 Black Roosters to deal with the current crisis.

The GSA talked to State and put it out for bid in Haiti to help their fragile economy, but all the roosters had be eaten.

 

[amicus]

I just did. The Chairman of Bush's own Council of Economic advisors "devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Find us an Economist who thinks you're right.

~~~

lower marginal tax rates in conjunction with .... such as Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt.

1. Reduce government spending,
2. Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. Reduce government regulation of the economy,
4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

~~~

Happy now?

Amicus

 

[TE999]

Well, what does that say about your "common sense"?
Facts don't have an ideology.

You'll notice that it's your sainted Republican politicians that are saying taxcuts increase revenues, not their economists.

Why do you believe politicians when their own advisors don't agree with the claims they make? Just because it sounds like "common sense"?

First off, don't make assumptions about someone you know nothing about based on an opinion they may express. It makes you look foolish.

'Facts' can be slanted any way to meet a preconceived conclusion...and to say that 'facts' don't have an ideology...or more properly an agenda...is ridiculous...global warming or climate change is a good example.

Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

They're not my Sainted Republicans...not everyone who disagrees with the prevailing leftist thought expressed around here is automatically a Republican...I'm a Libertarian...less government and all that.

Politicians are not known for common sense...they're known for doing for or rewarding or pandering to whoever will vote for them. I don't believe much of what any of them say because it's usually what's most expedient at the moment. Then when they're called on it they say they were misquoted.

 

[Huckleman2000]

lower marginal tax rates in conjunction with .... such as Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt.
[...]
Happy now?

Amicus

HA! Can you find one who's still alive, or didn't do their work in the Paleolithic Era? Besides, while you pointed out some "Austrian School" economists, that hardly says that they all thought that cutting taxes will increase tax revenue. If they did, I'm sure they would say that such a thing is possible only under certain conditions, i.e., when tax rates are above a certain point in the "Laffer Curve". Taxes are nowhere near that point, yet politicians cling to the part of the argument that they want to, and ignore the rest.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Hope in Jersey
In the state’s latest tax war, Governor Christie is standing firm.
11 April 2010

New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s recently unveiled budget has been alternately hailed and condemned for imposing spending cuts on the economically ailing state, but one item that’s not actually in the proposed budget has proved the biggest flashpoint: the so-called “millionaire’s tax” surcharge on incomes of $400,000 or more. Former governor Jon Corzine enacted the tax on a one-year timeline to replenish the state’s chronically empty coffers and bolster depleted revenues. By allowing it to expire, Christie has touched off a charged but vital debate about the kind of state New Jersey is—and the kind it should be.

....

Evidence suggests this tax-driven exodus is already underway. Several studies have documented that New Jersey’s tax burden is driving wealth—as well as the jobs, job opportunities, and revenues it creates—from the state. The most recent is a February study conducted by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College, which found that New Jersey lost more than $70 billion in wealth between 2004 and 2008 as wealthy households departed for lower-tax states like Pennsylvania and Florida. An October 2007 Rutgers University study on income by public policy professors James Hughes and John Seneca made similar findings. Examining Census Bureau and Internal Revenue Service data, they found that by 2005 New Jersey had lost nearly $8 billion in gross income since the start of the decade. As a result of the income loss and the associated drop in consumer spending, the authors estimate, the state lost nearly 39,000 jobs, $2.76 billion in gross domestic product, and $85.4 million in state sales- and income-tax revenues. Their study didn’t offer a sole explanation for the vanished income, but Professor Seneca says that high taxes are one probable cause. “Certainly, if you talk to tax accountants and estate advisors, the anecdotes are numerous that the general tax structure is a factor,” he says.