|
Post by blueneck on Jan 5, 2007 21:18:58 GMT -6
Well, one of the new congresses first successes has been to reinstate "pay as you go" or any new spending must be offset with cuts or revenue increases elsewhere. "Paygo" as it is commonly known was a key component in the budget balancing and surplus creating of the Clinton years, that sadly was quickly tossed aside by the "borrow and spend" republicrits under Bush. Typical of neo con behavior - they want to throw their big party, but want someone else to pay for it A good first step towards fiscal responsibility, now if they can roll back the supply side or "voodoo" tax cuts on the wealthiest 3% we'll be well on the way to deficit reduction and having the money for things that really matter like health care and education
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 7, 2007 0:36:02 GMT -6
A good first step towards fiscal responsibility, now if they can roll back the supply side or "voodoo" tax cuts on the wealthiest 3% we'll be well on the way to deficit reduction and having the money for things that really matter like health care and education There weren't any tax cuts on the wealthiest 3%, the tax cuts were on the top INCOME earners, who are not the wealthiest. To be in the top 1% of income earners a household only needs to have an income of about $334,000. If you have two doctors making $200k each they are in the top 1% of income earners but they are no where near the wealthiest in the country.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 7, 2007 2:51:16 GMT -6
Doctors earning $334k per year should be paying their fair share of taxes, which means more than people earniong less than 6 figures. Supply side economics creates a regressive tax as due to local and sales taxes lower income people end up shopuldering more of the tax burden as a percentage of their income. OK maybe lets say upper 2%, but either way, the tax cuts for the waelthiest need to be rolled back if anyone is serious about deficit reduction. Can you name any credible and non partisan economists who believe in the Laffer curve?
I thought all you righties were supposed to be about fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, I would think you would be applauding this move. But that right, that hypocrisy thing again, deficits BAD under democrats, but GOOD or "not a problem" under republicans. I also thought righties hold Buchanan up as some sort of conservative holy man, Its funny how more labor democrats tend to agree with Mr Buchanan than right wingers these days.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 7, 2007 17:32:38 GMT -6
A good first step towards fiscal responsibility, now if they can roll back the supply side or "voodoo" tax cuts on the wealthiest 3% we'll be well on the way to deficit reduction and having the money for things that really matter like health care and education Exactly right. There's no overall benefit to the economy in allowing the top 3% to keep more of their money. There is no good place to invest that "extra" money. That's why we have overvalued assets and excessive investment in long-term bonds. There's not an insufficient quantity of investment capital, or an inhibitory reduction in returns by current tax rates, or even Clinton-level tax rates. The problem is that good (capital) investment opportunities are lacking, due to insufficient consumer spending and demand to provide returns on further capital investment. Tax increases on the top percent won't reduce capital investment any. It's the lack of demand for production that is limiting returns at present, not excessive taxes. In fact, all market analysts state that the "markets are glutted with capital," or that we are "drowning in a see of liquidity." There is no lack of funds available for investment, nor are taxes on the returns reducing such investment. If you don't believe this, read what former Reagan undersecretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, has to say about Bush's pseudo-supply side tax cuts. (Note: Roberts is the author of the book, Supply-Side Revolution. If Roberts opposes them, then they clearly don't have even a supply-side justification.) Nice hair-splitting. Taxes on capital gains and investment income have been reduced, and that does affect the wealthiest 3% more than the lower 97%. Just for the record, this doctor has never made as much as $200,000 in one year. The "average" doctor is not making anything like $200,000/year. The overwhelming number of doctors are in the fields of Family Practice, Internal Medicine, or General Practice. Few make anything approaching $200,000/year. In addition, 2 doctors in one family is extremely rare, and combining 2 doctors' income to represent a "typical" high income family is a straw man argument. Less than 1% of doctors are married to another doctor.
|
|