$500 trillion tax cut (Page 2)

But how do we increase that revenue?  I'm assuming you're talking about raising taxes and there is a lot of controversy as to what is the tax rate that will generate the highest revenue.  If we're already at that rate then raising taxes could decrease revenue.

However, if we cut spending there is little debate that dollar for dollar of cut expenses will go to the bottom line.  So in my opinion cutting spending and increasing efficiency in existing government programs are the two things we need to do.  

BTW, a fun read on the "optimal tax rate" for raising revenue here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve 

Actually, the argument that cutting spending alone is the panacea we've been looking for...just isn't true.  In life, we often have to spend money to make money.  As I mentioned earlier, for every dollar that goes in to Planned Parenthood, I believe we get more than that dollar back in what we save as a result of that spending.  I'm pretty sure we can respectfully agree to disagree on giving the highest earning 120,000 families in the United States a $500 billion giveaway.  I don't think it's right....and a majority of Americans don't believe it's right either.

I read an article several years ago that talked about the pro's and con's of Roe v. Wade purely from an economic and criminal point of view.  I can't remember all of their findings but I recall that one was the decrease in overall crime because of the percentage of unwanted children who grow up in challenging homes, but the other side was the millions of people who were removed from the labor force before they took their first breath.  There's no question that Roe v. Wade has an impact on the economy as a whole, one way or the other.

You're probably going to fall over by reading this, but I do think Planned Parenthood does some good things.  I'm all for providing contraceptives to young people and the poor.  I do disagree with the abortion portion being taxpayer funded so maybe there's a compromise to be made there as well.

There absolutely is an argument to be made on some services the government provides, like you mentioned with Planned Parenthood.  However, there are a lot of spending cuts that absolutely cut the bottom line.  I'm guessing if we cut the defense budget by 20% you'd agree that would directly hit the bottom line.  If we didn't build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska that would go to the bottom line etc...

This report from PEW is interesting:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/29/presidential-race-dead-even-romney-maintains-turnout-edge/

Gomes - I am a strongly faithful person - which leads me to be pro life.  However, I see the worst of what people can do to one another on a fairly regular basis.  Which leads me to believe that it is not my responsibility nor my right to decide what people can and cannot do when faced with that decision. I have my beliefs.  But I should not force them on someone else. It is up to someone more qualified than me to judge.

Your point about the people who have been a successful product of a difficult decision is a good one.

"and a majority of Americans don't believe it's right either."

Last time I checked the polls were about 50/50.  I don't believe you can make this argument.

You've GOT to stop listening to the left on this.  It's not a $500 billion giveaway.  It's already in place.  Let's call it what it is.  It's is a $500 billion tax increase.

You said it yourself, sometimes you have to spend money to make money.  Sometimes you have to give people tax relief to allow them to grown business.  When you increase these taxes you stifle the business growth. (See my personal example of this earlier in this thread.)

And it's pretty obvious that government spending money is not "making money".  Both stimuli acts proved that.

Why do you insist on calling this a "giveaway" ?  You make it sound like money is being taken from the U.S. coffers and a check is being written out to each of these 120,000 families.   The money is already in their pockets......they earned it (and I'm sure some will squabble over that)....its their income.  The argument is how much the government wants to take out of their pocket.  The government isn't "giving" ANYTHING away.

Actually, it IS true...and its simple.  Has anyone shown how the "Penny Plan" introduced into Congress by Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) would not balance the budget by 2019?  This plan may have been discussed on BT already so forgive me if its already been talked to death.  But saying we can't balance the budget by cutting spending alone just isn't true.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that adds up. Some quick math.

Federal budget in 2012 ~$3.7T.

Year 1 reduce by $37B, Year 2 $74B, Year 3 $111B, Year 4 $148B, Year 5 $185B, Year 6 $222B for a total of $777B. This is about $600B short of balancing the budget.

Not sure what you're doing there.  They way it's explained is:

3382 billion * 0.99 = 3348 billion (2012)

3348 billion * 0.99 = 3315 billion (2013)

3315 billion * 0.99 = 3281 billion (2014)

etc... till 2019 when we get to 3152 billion (which is still short)

What is not obvious is that the plan also caps spending at 18% of GDP after year 6.  This is where the big cuts get made.

What exactly does Planned Parenthood do that any neighborhood clinic does not? If it is health care, that is already provided under a litany of services that the Government already subsidizes for the needy.

It's so funny this "is not on the table". Planned parenthood is a drop in the bucket, it would not even cause a whimper in the country, yet you want to fight for it. This is the problem. A hundred of these "pet projects" should be cut. For all sorts of things... corporate welfare is all it is. You put healthcare dollars to healthcare, not Planned Parenthood.

If you think PP is such a vital force, then what was your last donation to the company? Same goes for any corporate welfare, if those that think giving oil companies money to explore is a great idea... then by all means write a check. You want PP and PBS... write a check. When it comes to reigning in an unsustainable budget... EVERYTHING is on the table. Even defense spending should be cut. Only difference is that defense is in the Constitution, Planned Parenthood is not.

Why do I call it a giveaway?  12 years ago, the wealthiest Americans alive paid a higher % in income tax.  I'm sorry, we've got a deficit.  Raising revenue and cutting spending is how I balance my budget at home.  

I tell ya what...I will support trickle-down economics when I see it actually working.  How do I do that?  I look at the overall economy but more importantly, how much the wealth accretes to the top.  If it's trending into the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor (like it has been) sorry, I'm not supporting it.  

And 12 years ago... so did you. So why are you not proposing to raise your rates? And really... you feel 35% of one's income is not progressive enough... 40% is the magic number that is going to save the country?

So are you willing to pay 5% more income tax?

The wealthiest Americans can afford it.  They paid much more in the past.  Am I willing to pay more, yes.  I never said raising that to 40% would "save the country."  Please don't put words in my mouth.  

Since GW Bush's tax cuts of '01, '03...the money has not trickled down.  It just hasn't.  I don't believe we should let our country become a plutocracy.  We need a thriving middle class to be successful.  Giving gigantic tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans (especially in a tough economy) just doesn't make sense to me.

Well the rate from Clinton was 40%, but now the rate for the wealthiest is 35%. Bush tax cuts also cut middle class rates. those tax cuts have been critisized by Dems every since he did them... yet they have upheld them every since they expired. Obama too. Giving tax breaks at all in a tough economy does not make any sense at all... yet Obama has done that every time the BTC came up for expiration.

If it is such a no brainer, then why does Obama just not push for all Bush tax cuts to expire?

I just fail to see how anyone can claim with a straight face 40% of a person's income is "their fair share", when the rest of the country refuses to give up their sweet cuts, and 47% of the country does not pay taxes.  Because after all... 35% of a persons income, is just completely out of line when 47% of the country is depending on them.

Everyone who works should pay more, everyone who doesn't work should get less........done.

I'll tell you why...because it's actually lower than what it was for over 50 years!  The tax vacation for the wealthy started about 10 years ago...how's that working for us?  Will allowing the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire alone solve the problem?  No.  Is it a step in the right direction.  Yes.  Sorry, I just don't believe that $500 billion (it's actually a little more than $500 billion by the way) will trickle down.  It didn't over the last 10 years, why will it in the future?

btw, I agree with President Obama, I don't believe the other 98% should have their taxes raised.  btw, I have a feeling a majority of the 98% agree with me.

You've totally...totally..... avoided answering my question.  How is this a "giveaway"??  They already own the money!!    How is the gov "giving" them anything?????   Respectfully, I could care less about your views on trickle down economics and it has no bearing on my question to you.  This is not a "giveaway" and your answer does nothing to refute that.  The issue is how much the gov "takes" out of their pocket.   So, because the gov is taking less out of their pocket now than they were 12 years ago the gov is somehow "giving" them something??  That sort of logic is out of the same camp that calls a decrease in the "rate of increase" in spending a "spending cut" and is a huge part of what is wrong with our financial situation.  People think of this as monopoly money.  Further down you state that this group's income tax was much higher for much of the last 50 years....that doesn't mean that higher tax rate was proper or more fair. 

One of the saddest things to happen to America is the divisiness that support of political parties has created amoungst the populace.  Make no mistake, this divisiness is not a mistake, it is not something that those that control political parties disfavor, to the contrary, the divisiness of political party support is something that those in power count on in order to maintain their power base.

Our political discourse has become nothing more than college football mentality.  You route for your favorite team and you hate everything about your in-state rival.  So too our political system has become as it relates to support of whatever political party we most associate ourselves with.

This notion is nothing new, I certainly am not smart enough or clever enough to have thought of it, or observed it as an original theoretical prospective.  It is something that our earliest leaders knew and warned us of.  In fact our very first President, warned of the dangers of factions and parties in his Farewell Address of 1796.

I give you a small quote from President Washington's farewell address: "

"...I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

Now my ending comments:  UNtil we as Americans DEMAND the destruction of the political parties that dominate our State and Local governments, the political parties that revel in seeing the voters at each others throats over the stance of the other political party, we shall all never have a real choice in our elections.  More and More the candidates through their political parties do not set out their own goals or own solutions to problems but rather simply espouse the inefficiencies with the other parties ideology.  Ideologies that when placed into practice are so similar as to almost be indistinguishable.

Through parties, those that govern pit Americans against each other, solely to the benefit of those in power.  And even more freightening, those in power may not be the elected officials but rather the individuals that run the political parties in backroom deals.

I respectfully disagree.

in it's simplest form trickle down economics lets earners keep more of their money to spend it in the economy.  This spending results in more products bought which causes more jobs and the money "trickles down" to everyone very efficiently.  Even if rich people "horde" the money they still have to horde it somewhere (stock market, banks, etc...) which still helps others.

The alternative is to penalize earners by taking more of their money they earned which de-incentivizes them to earn more.  The money then goes to the government who takes their cut and then it's handed out to the poor.  This handout in turn de-incentivizes the poor to earn more.  The net result is a three pronged attack on productivity and economic growth.

You also make it sound like the "trickle down" tax cuts are responsible for the current economic meltdown.  I don't think they have anything to do with it because the meltdown was triggered by democrats and republicans putting stupid policies in place to push people into buying houses they could not afford.  Even if the tax cuts didn't exist the economy would have still imploded.

Can someone please explain to me how "they can afford it" somehow magically makes taking things from some people to give to other people fair?