Fiscal Cliff and the Clinton Era Tax Rates in Political Science Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Fiscal Cliff and the Clinton Era Tax Rates

Author	Comment
usajb	Fiscal Cliff and the Clinton Era Tax Rates		Lead	[-]
Posts: 1378 July 16, 2012 11:44 AM "Southfew should turn over the moderating of the board to johnnysouthcarolinafootball."	Tags : None Remove this ad I keep hearing about the up coming fiscal cliff in 2013. A major part of this cliff appears to be a return to Clinton era tax rates. The business channels (CNBC in particular, since that is the one I watch) act as if we don't extend Bush's tax cuts it's going to be Armageddon. Could someone please explain to me why nobody mentions how well the economy was doing during the Clinton years at these tax rates?
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17407 July 16, 2012 11:51 AM	there are many new taxes and regulations since the clinton era. ask yourself this, would you go back to clinton era spending of 20% of GDP in exchange for restoring all clinton era tax rates? that would be an 18% cut to government spending. i'll make this deal in the spirit of bipartisanship. As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
529NorthLakeSt		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 752 July 16, 2012 11:54 AM	Because the economy is not doing well right now. There are positives, but it is pretty fragile. The combined spending cuts and tax increases of the "fiscal cliff" would be a pretty big shock to the fragile economy.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17407 July 16, 2012 4:31 PM	If Clinton era tax rates are endorsed, do additional taxes (like the .9% medicare tax for Obamacare and 3.9% tax on investment income) go away? What about the medical device tax of 2.3%....of revenue (for fuckssakes)? What about increased state taxes to pay for medicaid expansion as part of Obamacare? What about future debt reduction efforts? What about fixing Social Security? If we get total taxes to the Clinton era rates they will be lower for the wealthy than they are now. They will be higher for the middle class than they are now. The poor would do significantly worse. Additionally, an 18% spending reduction would also hit the poor and the middle class very hard.....the plan is to get to Clinton era spending levels too, right? The economy wasn't so bad then with those spending levels, was it? Do democrats really want Clinton era spending and tax levels? This debate would be very interesting should any progressive have the courage and knowledge to step up. As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish. Edited 2 times by yanked July 16, 2012 5:07 PM.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
TwinsBrewersWorldSeries		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1018 July 18, 2012 8:09 AM	Yanked- I would vote today for a package that restored Clinton era spending and Clinton era taxes. It fixes the budget deficit problem. I'd pass a balanced budget amendment, and would require a tax increase any time we went to war. No new defense spending, no new wars. Oh, and no new handouts or increased handouts (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) without the bottom 55% paying more than ZERO "The Cardinals fashion themselves as the keepers of baseball etiquette....That was uncalled for. It's just bush league, that's what it is. Bush league. ....Once again, they're nothing if not predictable, complain about everything, but that's Cardinal's baseball."
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LamontS1		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4106 July 21, 2012 3:02 PM	usajb wrote: I keep hearing about the up coming fiscal cliff in 2013. A major part of this cliff appears to be a return to Clinton era tax rates. The business channels (CNBC in particular, since that is the one I watch) act as if we don't extend Bush's tax cuts it's going to be Armageddon. Could someone please explain to me why nobody mentions how well the economy was doing during the Clinton years at these tax rates? The economy from 1993 to 2000 expanded despite those tax increases, not because of them. Right now the economy is weak and rolling over, even after that 2% payroll tax cut just a year or so ago. There is just no way that economic growth could reaccelerate next year if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire. We'd experience millions of jobs losses.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17407 July 21, 2012 4:04 PM	LamontS1 wrote: usajb wrote: I keep hearing about the up coming fiscal cliff in 2013. A major part of this cliff appears to be a return to Clinton era tax rates. The business channels (CNBC in particular, since that is the one I watch) act as if we don't extend Bush's tax cuts it's going to be Armageddon. Could someone please explain to me why nobody mentions how well the economy was doing during the Clinton years at these tax rates? The economy from 1993 to 2000 expanded despite those tax increases, not because of them. Right now the economy is weak and rolling over, even after that 2% payroll tax cut just a year or so ago. There is just no way that economic growth could reaccelerate next year if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire. We'd experience millions of jobs losses. The upside on that is you'd get the crisis you need to cut back government spending and regulations. Its similar to how we got trillions in stimulus that provided zero long term value, which was supposed to be the purpose of stimulus. We got short term job growth but nothing sustained after the money ran out. It wasn't too small, it didn't work, period. I think the economy is fucked for a decade. No one will extend money or take risk in this political environment. Still plenty of money to be made, just with millions and millions fewer workers. Technology, obamacare and taxes will accelerate the decline of available jobs. I've noticed the unemployment tax doubling and tripling the past 2 years, roughly to $1000 per employee in some states. This money comes right out of the workers pockets only to feed a program (unemployment) that encourages being out of work. Plenty of studies prove Obama's policy of extending unemployment keeps people unemployed....I've seen studies in Europe and the US that outline the phenomenon. Not that progressives can read and digest economic news, this is my moral obligation to provide knowledge welfare: A number of academic studies suggest that extending benefits creates a "moral hazard" in which beneficiaries postpone serious job searching. That, in turn, contributes to a higher unemployment rate. "There was no good news in the June survey" released last week, the trade association said. "NFIB members didn't add a lot of jobs and don't plan to in the coming months." A combined 40% of those surveyed cited "taxes" and "government regulation/red tape" as the most important problems facing small business, compared with 23% who cited "poor sales." That's a pretty loud shout to lawmakers. Except for one thing: Marsh isn't hiring. He's being killed by unemployment taxes that are on their way to quadrupling since 2009. When new business comes calling, Marsh says, "I have to ask myself if there's another way to meet production needs without adding employees.'' He would rather pay overtime than shell out a per-worker tax of $900 (up from $270 three years ago) that is slated to rise to about $1,100 in 2014. The issue I have with the failures of progressive economics is that it not only makes the jobs picture worse, it simultaneously fucks up the debt and deficits, creating more horrible policies. There is absolutely zero doubt that the cause of our problems can be traced to the progressive movement getting a foothold starting in early '07 and then nominating Obama. Obamacare will be a huge blow to normal american workers while it will probably be a bonanza for the crooks in the public sector. To be fair, it will be a bonanza for the crooks in business as well. This is a great opportunity to offload an $8,000 per employee cost currently, reduce it to $2500 and then give all the future increases to the employees. If gov't raises taxes to pay for shortfalls later, just pass those costs on to employees. No way this ends well for anyone. America will take a long time to clean up after these policy disasters, if it can be done at all. As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
stinkinbadgs		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 112 July 21, 2012 4:29 PM	Most of the political rhetoric ignores govt spending growth -- to out of control health care costs, well before Obama...growth in military spending...crazy growth and just stupid spending on homeland security. The great thing about being a conservative is that you can just blame it all on liberals and their out of control spending. But if you look at health care, even if crazy liberals just want to maintain the safety net as it was -- that means huge increases. And if you are conservative its easy to say -- sky rocketing taxes without talking about what's really happening. Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP are at a 50 to 60 year low. What I don't understand is why the tax-reducing, regulation eliminating -- Bush administration -- didn't hand off a economic juggernaut.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
usajb		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1378 July 21, 2012 5:24 PM "Southfew should turn over the moderating of the board to johnnysouthcarolinafootball."	stinkinbadgs wrote: What I don't understand is why the tax-reducing, regulation eliminating -- Bush administration -- didn't hand off a economic juggernaut. Thanks! Waiting for "taxes are still too high" reply.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LamontS1		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4106 July 21, 2012 7:49 PM	Remove this ad stinkinbadgs wrote: Most of the political rhetoric ignores govt spending growth -- to out of control health care costs, well before Obama...growth in military spending...crazy growth and just stupid spending on homeland security. The great thing about being a conservative is that you can just blame it all on liberals and their out of control spending. But if you look at health care, even if crazy liberals just want to maintain the safety net as it was -- that means huge increases. And if you are conservative its easy to say -- sky rocketing taxes without talking about what's really happening. Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP are at a 50 to 60 year low. What I don't understand is why the tax-reducing, regulation eliminating -- Bush administration -- didn't hand off a economic juggernaut. Large numbers of (or most) conservatives do blame President George W Bush and last decades Republican congress for out of control spending (whether Homeland Security, earmarks, Medicare Part D, or whatever). About increasing taxes, Pelosi and Reid say they wanted to spend any new money raised from taxes (predictably); so from the conservative's perspective, tax increases are a non-starter. About federal taxes being at a 50-60 year low as a percentage of GDP, that's because the huge increases to federal govt spending have pushed up GDP. It's also because corporate tax rates are so high in that US, that most multinationals are accounting for most their money off-shore.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LamontS1		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4106 July 21, 2012 8:08 PM	usajb wrote: stinkinbadgs wrote: What I don't understand is why the tax-reducing, regulation eliminating -- Bush administration -- didn't hand off a economic juggernaut. Thanks! Waiting for "taxes are still too high" reply. For one, the tax cuts weren't all that big, plus there was no cut in the corporate tax rate. Two, this so called "regulation eliminating" never happened. Three, the tax cuts mitigated what otherwise would have been a far deeper recession following the 9 straight years of significant GDP and employment growth and the fed induced dot.com bubble, so the Bush economy was moving up from an already very high base. Had the recession been deeper and longer, then the subsequent growth would have been far stronger and the boom period longer. Four, the entry of China into the WTO hollowed out the US manufacturing base. Employment in the manufacturing and technology sectors of the US economy were devastated during the Bush years. Virtually all the new investment from 2002-2006 in the US were either into the housing and financial sectors directly or retail related to home equity withdrawals (housing indirectly). That was the fault of monetary and trade policy (note that Clinton did all the legwork for China's entry into the WTO and he deregulated the financial sector). There was some healthy growth from mid-2006 to mid-2008 in the export and commodity related sectors, and that growth continued from mid-2009 until some months ago, but it was not enough to mitigate the downside of the housing bubble.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Combad57		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6741 July 23, 2012 6:33 AM	It's still true as it has always been that revenue is half the equation when it comes to running the country. Big corporate execs, hedge fund managers and banksters have plenty of unearned cash to be taxed. It does seem strange that somebody who earns his/her money by the strenth of his arm, sweat of his brow or sense of his brain are taxed at a higher rate than those who make money from their money. Why our system values capital more than labor is beyond me. People producing goods and services contribute far more to the economy than those who use their wealth simply to create more wealth yet they are taxed at a lower rate. Senseless.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17407 July 23, 2012 7:02 AM	Combad57 wrote: It's still true as it has always been that revenue is half the equation when it comes to running the country. Big corporate execs, hedge fund managers and banksters have plenty of unearned cash to be taxed. It does seem strange that somebody who earns his/her money by the strenth of his arm, sweat of his brow or sense of his brain are taxed at a higher rate than those who make money from their money. Why our system values capital more than labor is beyond me. People producing goods and services contribute far more to the economy than those who use their wealth simply to create more wealth yet they are taxed at a lower rate. Senseless. Yet, the rich pay all the taxes. When 21% of the earned capital is paying 50% of the taxes, 79% of the earned capital (poor and middle class) clearly aren't paying their fair share. The data on this is not hard to find. As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
XPModel	So I'm rich?	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1159 July 23, 2012 7:47 PM	yanked wrote: Combad57 wrote: It's still true as it has always been that revenue is half the equation when it comes to running the country. Big corporate execs, hedge fund managers and banksters have plenty of unearned cash to be taxed. It does seem strange that somebody who earns his/her money by the strenth of his arm, sweat of his brow or sense of his brain are taxed at a higher rate than those who make money from their money. Why our system values capital more than labor is beyond me. People producing goods and services contribute far more to the economy than those who use their wealth simply to create more wealth yet they are taxed at a lower rate. Senseless. Yet, the rich pay all the taxes. When 21% of the earned capital is paying 50% of the taxes, 79% of the earned capital (poor and middle class) clearly aren't paying their fair share. The data on this is not hard to find. Thanks for letting me know! Shit I'm gonna retire now that I know I'm rich.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
CVBucky		#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 784 July 24, 2012 8:03 AM	yanked wrote: If Clinton era tax rates are endorsed, do additional taxes (like the .9% medicare tax for Obamacare and 3.9% tax on investment income) go away? What about the medical device tax of 2.3%....of revenue (for fuckssakes)? What about increased state taxes to pay for medicaid expansion as part of Obamacare? What about future debt reduction efforts? What about fixing Social Security? If we get total taxes to the Clinton era rates they will be lower for the wealthy than they are now. They will be higher for the middle class than they are now. The poor would do significantly worse. Additionally, an 18% spending reduction would also hit the poor and the middle class very hard.....the plan is to get to Clinton era spending levels too, right? The economy wasn't so bad then with those spending levels, was it? Do democrats really want Clinton era spending and tax levels? This debate would be very interesting should any progressive have the courage and knowledge to step up. No, the debate would be interesting if you'd have asked yourself that question when Bush 43 was handing out tax cuts and financing two wars at the same time. Edited 1 time by CVBucky July 24, 2012 8:34 AM.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17407 July 24, 2012 3:37 PM	CVBucky wrote: yanked wrote: If Clinton era tax rates are endorsed, do additional taxes (like the .9% medicare tax for Obamacare and 3.9% tax on investment income) go away? What about the medical device tax of 2.3%....of revenue (for fuckssakes)? What about increased state taxes to pay for medicaid expansion as part of Obamacare? What about future debt reduction efforts? What about fixing Social Security? If we get total taxes to the Clinton era rates they will be lower for the wealthy than they are now. They will be higher for the middle class than they are now. The poor would do significantly worse. Additionally, an 18% spending reduction would also hit the poor and the middle class very hard.....the plan is to get to Clinton era spending levels too, right? The economy wasn't so bad then with those spending levels, was it? Do democrats really want Clinton era spending and tax levels? This debate would be very interesting should any progressive have the courage and knowledge to step up. No, the debate would be interesting if you'd have asked yourself that question when Bush 43 was handing out tax cuts and financing two wars at the same time. I don't get it. You want to see lower and middle income taxes increase? All Bush did was levy equal and fair tax cuts. Lowered the Clinton rate across the board and then created additional handouts for the bottom feeders. I'm more than happy to return all the rates to where they were....but dim's don't seem to want that. Now they want Clinton level rates just for the rich AND additional taxes on medicare, investment income, etc. If Bush did anything wrong it was giving tax cuts to people who do nothing for society. That's like giving a $10m roster bonus to an unsigned rookie free agent that you cut after two days. As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
CVBucky		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 784 July 24, 2012 4:24 PM	yanked wrote: CVBucky wrote: yanked wrote: If Clinton era tax rates are endorsed, do additional taxes (like the .9% medicare tax for Obamacare and 3.9% tax on investment income) go away? What about the medical device tax of 2.3%....of revenue (for fuckssakes)? What about increased state taxes to pay for medicaid expansion as part of Obamacare? What about future debt reduction efforts? What about fixing Social Security? If we get total taxes to the Clinton era rates they will be lower for the wealthy than they are now. They will be higher for the middle class than they are now. The poor would do significantly worse. Additionally, an 18% spending reduction would also hit the poor and the middle class very hard.....the plan is to get to Clinton era spending levels too, right? The economy wasn't so bad then with those spending levels, was it? Do democrats really want Clinton era spending and tax levels? This debate would be very interesting should any progressive have the courage and knowledge to step up. No, the debate would be interesting if you'd have asked yourself that question when Bush 43 was handing out tax cuts and financing two wars at the same time. I don't get it. You want to see lower and middle income taxes increase? All Bush did was levy equal and fair tax cuts. Lowered the Clinton rate across the board and then created additional handouts for the bottom feeders. I'm more than happy to return all the rates to where they were....but dim's don't seem to want that. Now they want Clinton level rates just for the rich AND additional taxes on medicare, investment income, etc. If Bush did anything wrong it was giving tax cuts to people who do nothing for society. That's like giving a $10m roster bonus to an unsigned rookie free agent that you cut after two days. I know you don't get it. All Bush did was get the country used to not having to sacrifice. Fund two wars while giving out tax breaks? Sure! How will we pay for that? We'll use oil revenues! Brilliant!
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17407 July 25, 2012 7:19 AM	CVBucky wrote: yanked wrote: CVBucky wrote: yanked wrote: If Clinton era tax rates are endorsed, do additional taxes (like the .9% medicare tax for Obamacare and 3.9% tax on investment income) go away? What about the medical device tax of 2.3%....of revenue (for fuckssakes)? What about increased state taxes to pay for medicaid expansion as part of Obamacare? What about future debt reduction efforts? What about fixing Social Security? If we get total taxes to the Clinton era rates they will be lower for the wealthy than they are now. They will be higher for the middle class than they are now. The poor would do significantly worse. Additionally, an 18% spending reduction would also hit the poor and the middle class very hard.....the plan is to get to Clinton era spending levels too, right? The economy wasn't so bad then with those spending levels, was it? Do democrats really want Clinton era spending and tax levels? This debate would be very interesting should any progressive have the courage and knowledge to step up. No, the debate would be interesting if you'd have asked yourself that question when Bush 43 was handing out tax cuts and financing two wars at the same time. I don't get it. You want to see lower and middle income taxes increase? All Bush did was levy equal and fair tax cuts. Lowered the Clinton rate across the board and then created additional handouts for the bottom feeders. I'm more than happy to return all the rates to where they were....but dim's don't seem to want that. Now they want Clinton level rates just for the rich AND additional taxes on medicare, investment income, etc. If Bush did anything wrong it was giving tax cuts to people who do nothing for society. That's like giving a $10m roster bonus to an unsigned rookie free agent that you cut after two days. I know you don't get it. All Bush did was get the country used to not having to sacrifice. Fund two wars while giving out tax breaks? Sure! How will we pay for that? We'll use oil revenues! Brilliant! Now you're just being uninformed. The rich pay more now than they did under Clinton. The middle class and the poor pay less. Why wouldn't all you guys join me in asking the middle class and poor pay their fair share - just what they paid in the Clinton era? Why should only the rich and corporations sacrifice? As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
CVBucky		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 784 July 25, 2012 7:58 AM	Remove this ad yanked wrote: CVBucky wrote: yanked wrote: CVBucky wrote: yanked wrote: If Clinton era tax rates are endorsed, do additional taxes (like the .9% medicare tax for Obamacare and 3.9% tax on investment income) go away? What about the medical device tax of 2.3%....of revenue (for fuckssakes)? What about increased state taxes to pay for medicaid expansion as part of Obamacare? What about future debt reduction efforts? What about fixing Social Security? If we get total taxes to the Clinton era rates they will be lower for the wealthy than they are now. They will be higher for the middle class than they are now. The poor would do significantly worse. Additionally, an 18% spending reduction would also hit the poor and the middle class very hard.....the plan is to get to Clinton era spending levels too, right? The economy wasn't so bad then with those spending levels, was it? Do democrats really want Clinton era spending and tax levels? This debate would be very interesting should any progressive have the courage and knowledge to step up. No, the debate would be interesting if you'd have asked yourself that question when Bush 43 was handing out tax cuts and financing two wars at the same time. I don't get it. You want to see lower and middle income taxes increase? All Bush did was levy equal and fair tax cuts. Lowered the Clinton rate across the board and then created additional handouts for the bottom feeders. I'm more than happy to return all the rates to where they were....but dim's don't seem to want that. Now they want Clinton level rates just for the rich AND additional taxes on medicare, investment income, etc. If Bush did anything wrong it was giving tax cuts to people who do nothing for society. That's like giving a $10m roster bonus to an unsigned rookie free agent that you cut after two days. I know you don't get it. All Bush did was get the country used to not having to sacrifice. Fund two wars while giving out tax breaks? Sure! How will we pay for that? We'll use oil revenues! Brilliant! Now you're just being uninformed. The rich pay more now than they did under Clinton. The middle class and the poor pay less. Why wouldn't all you guys join me in asking the middle class and poor pay their fair share - just what they paid in the Clinton era? Why should only the rich and corporations sacrifice? Where did I say anything about only the rich and corporations? Like you said - you don't get it.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Fiscal Cliff and the Clinton Era Tax Rates

Fiscal Cliff and the Clinton Era Tax Rates