09 Jun 11
1 edit
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/news/economy/federal_spending_cuts/?hpt=po_bn1
Some top deficit hawks from the left and right are flashing a warning sign: Making
too many federal spending cuts now will hurt the economy.
These are the same folks, mind you, who have been preaching the perils of debt
long before the cut-now-or-else Tea Party came to town.
And their message comes at a time when Republicans are pushing for trillions in
federal spending cuts -- with as much in the near-term as possible -- in exchange
for raising the country's debt ceiling.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaAbsolutely. Every state has one. Why not the country?
Since we're talking long-term solutions, why not also consider a balanced budget
amendment? Of course, there could be provisions for exceptions under certain
circumstances, but I don't think the idea itself is radical.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaRaising taxes to pay off the deficit will validate the present spending level at a new higher level. Then that will be passed -- and we will raise taxes again. Then that will be passed -- and taxes rise again.
Maybe with respect to short-term spending, but not with respect to paying off the deficit.
Eventually you end up in 1970 all over again.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358Taxes are too low. And the concept that unearned income and inheritances should be taxed at lower rates (or not at all) than work is an abomination.
Raising taxes to pay off the deficit will validate the present spending level at a new higher level. Then that will be passed -- and we will raise taxes again. Then that will be passed -- and taxes rise again.
Eventually you end up in 1970 all over again.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358Will Disco come back!?
Raising taxes to pay off the deficit will validate the present spending level at a new higher level. Then that will be passed -- and we will raise taxes again. Then that will be passed -- and taxes rise again.
Eventually you end up in 1970 all over again.
Saturday Night Fever trailer
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauder20% is a reasonable tax rate. 15% is better. Unearned income is like any income and should be taxed accordingly.
Taxes are too low. And the concept that unearned income and inheritances should be taxed at lower rates (or not at all) than work is an abomination.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauderRe: dividends -- yes. Dividends should be treated more like salaries. Salaries are deducted as an expense before corporate tax is figured.
Flat rates ignore Diminishing Marginal Utility and are thus economically dubious.
I thought you were opposed to a tax on dividend income.
If we forced companies to pay salaries with after tax money (and still taxed the employees who received that salary) that would be double-taxation. That's what we do with dividends.
Doing this would encourage dividend payments and could eventually lead to a system where people rely on dividends in retirement instead of purchasing a government annuity (e.g. social security). We should definitely encourage that.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by sh76SH, you've been pretty level headed over the years at rhp.
Everyone agrees the federal budget deficit is insane. But how to fix it? Dems want only take hikes and long term increasing spending (with short term insignificant "show" cuts). Republicans want no tax cuts at all and just slash and burn social spending.
Why can't these idiots realize that BOTH are needed? Taxes have to be raised at least to Clinton levels a ...[text shortened]...
If up, great.
If not, try again.
Do this twice a month until you pass something.
But to answer your question all you need to do is look at how other countries around the world handle their fiscal crisis and the answer as to "WHY" these things don't get fixed should be obvious. The answer is.....
...because they don't have to be fixed. Nothing will happen RIGHT NOW if nothing get fixed. The only time things will get fixed is when they have to. And that time, while coming soon, isn't right now.
If you want to know how the US will handle their fiscal problems, look to greece, ireland, spain, italy, and you'll see. Just wait until the debt holders decide they don't want to buy your debt anymore and then you make changes. It's easier to make changes when you are being FORCED than to do them volunarily. Politicians need an excuse to raise taxes and cut programs and right now, and i mean right this minute, you don't have that excuse.
The day will come and when it does the change will be severe but until that day comes, you'll just keep seeing all the grubby politicians vying for power, paychecks and campaign contributions.....
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358The "double taxation" argument has been debunked on this forum many times. Corporations and stock holders are completely different entities and taxation should reflect that; dividends are not an "expense" they are a distribution of the companies' earnings to its owners. Economically, we should be encouraging corporations to retain and reinvest earnings to grow the economy. So your argument doubly fails.
Re: dividends -- yes. Dividends should be treated more like salaries. Salaries are deducted as an expense before corporate tax is figured.
If we forced companies to pay salaries with after tax money (and still taxed the employees who received that salary) that would be double-taxation. That's what we do with dividends.
Doing this would encourage d ...[text shortened]... of purchasing a government annuity (e.g. social security). We should definitely encourage that.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauderAbsolutely not. Double taxation of dividends means companies must try to deliver returns to their investors through higher stock prices instead of profit-sharing. It is a case of government regulation interfering in the normal working of the economy again.
The "double taxation" argument has been debunked on this forum many times. Corporations and stock holders are completely different entities and taxation should reflect that; dividends are not an "expense" they are a distribution of the companies' earnings to its owners. Economically, we should be encouraging corporations to retain and reinvest earnings to grow the economy. So your argument doubly fails.
It makes stocks an unsuitable vehicle for retirement investment -- when in fact there would be many benefits if they were.
This isn't that radical. S corporations pass all of their profit through to owners without tax. I'm saying a C corporation should be able to treat its owners the same way on a dividend distribution. What the corporation keeps is taxed at the corporate rate.