tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post5301798490362395078..comments2024-03-28T10:22:25.136-04:00Comments on the daily howler: If you don’t like the Perry plan, just watch a different channel!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-21890747750803336922011-10-27T08:16:15.332-04:002011-10-27T08:16:15.332-04:00I have a question. In the present form one can ta...I have a question. In the present form one can take the standard deduction for each member of the household or deduct for home mortgage, charitable contributions and so on. Does the Perry system allow you to do both?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20086478142389892982011-10-27T03:41:14.422-04:002011-10-27T03:41:14.422-04:00Since people still do not come in 4-packs, taxes w...Since people still do not come in 4-packs, taxes would go up for one group - single, childless people. Under the Perry plan, a single person making $20,000 a year would pay $1500 in income taxes, much more than the four-pack at $50,000. Our current system favors families with children, but even under the current system a childless person at $20,000 income only pays $1,243 at most - less if they take advantage of the IRA deduction and the retirement savings credit. And childless people would only be paying a 15% marginal rate on income up to $42,900.<br /><br />Further, since the top .1% was only paying an average rate of 22.7% in 2008 and the top 1% was paying 23.27%, the Perry plan would not be that huge of a tax cut for them, unless it exempts non-wage income from taxation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-51669268135648305012011-10-26T23:20:32.185-04:002011-10-26T23:20:32.185-04:00David in Cal said...
"Now, during the period...David in Cal said...<br /><br />"Now, during the period of big government, high taxes, and enormous amounts of regulation, the US is declining toward becoming a second-rate nation."<br /><br />You clearly have no clue what the top marginal income tax rate was during the Eisenhower years, a time of great prosperity.<br /><br />" the US is declining toward becoming a second-rate nation."<br /><br />Now you're having "fun" again, just like Perry was and it's still not a good reason for bringing back the robber barons and monopolists!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11999781378079794172011-10-26T22:02:24.391-04:002011-10-26T22:02:24.391-04:00Some ways to reduce the deficit? How about no more...Some ways to reduce the deficit? How about no more wars of choice based on lies, e.g., Vietnam, Iraq. The Afghanistan war should be closed down at long last, that would certainly help lower the deficit. Allow Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices, to buy drugs in bulk as the VA does. Raise the top marginal tax rate to what it was during the Nixon regime. Wasn't WW 2 the biggest stimulus spending in history? So many people say WW 2 was what really got us out of the Depression, thereby trying to discredit FDR's bold efforts before war broke out? FDR's programs did improve things, then WW 2 certainly pushed us out of the Depression but at a terrible price in blood. The GI bill certainly stimulated the economy as well. The GI Bill was a stimulus and an investment in the returning veterans of the war. If the smaller government ideologues had been in charge in 1945, there would have been no GI Bill. As far as I know, Bush was the only president to ever lower taxes during a time of war. Bush's wars have not stimulated the economy, quite the opposite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10113010447120473172011-10-26T21:35:31.310-04:002011-10-26T21:35:31.310-04:00Let's look at actual results, Anon. During th...Let's look at actual results, Anon. During the period of what you call the robber barons and monopolists, the US grew to be the greatest, richest country on the face of the earth. Now, during the period of big government, high taxes, and enormous amounts of regulation, the US is declining toward becoming a second-rate nation.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26581517886943565242011-10-26T19:15:45.706-04:002011-10-26T19:15:45.706-04:00David in Cal said...
"They'd have to suc...David in Cal said...<br /><br />"They'd have to succeed the old-fashioned way -- by providing quality products and services at fair prices."<br /><br />You believe in fairy tales rather than history.<br /><br />The robber barons and monopolists didn't provide quality products and services at fair prices they exploited an unregulated system for the benefit of the few!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-80777258878303096672011-10-26T18:59:27.286-04:002011-10-26T18:59:27.286-04:00Yes, Anonymous. I ought to have included the armi...Yes, Anonymous. I ought to have included the armies of well paid lobbiests. That's another reason I favor less government. If the government wre less powerful, organizations would have less to gain by lobbying. They'd have to succeed the old-fashioned way -- by providing quality products and services at fair prices.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20764999019007786592011-10-26T18:50:03.584-04:002011-10-26T18:50:03.584-04:00"BTW government workers are making out very w..."BTW government workers are making out very well during this recession."<br /><br />and let's not forget the armies of well paid lobbyists populating the city either!!<br /><br />Come on, admit it, like Perry you're just having a little "fun".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-38845875610726087382011-10-26T18:47:39.733-04:002011-10-26T18:47:39.733-04:00David in Cal said...
"Anonymous, you're ...David in Cal said...<br /><br />"Anonymous, you're exaggerating, but I essentially agree with you."<br /><br />About making government so small you can drown in in the bath tub?<br /><br />That's a quote from Grover "no tax increases ever under any circumstances" Nordquist. How many Republicans in congress have signed his no new taxes pledge?<br /><br />"BTW government workers are making out very well during this recession."<br /><br />Yeah, if you count the multi-millionaire congresspeople as "government workers."<br /><br />You won't find too many government clerks living in Georgetown!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85997042294969280302011-10-26T18:16:55.690-04:002011-10-26T18:16:55.690-04:00Anonymous, you're exaggerating, but I essentia...Anonymous, you're exaggerating, but I essentially agree with you. Republicans tend to believe that big government is bad for the economy, bad for freedom, bad for civil liberties, bad for minority groups, and bad for the poor. We tend to believe that only group of people helped by big government is government workers.<br /><br />BTW government workers are making out very well during this recession. Silicon Valley, where I live, used to be the most properous area of the country. But Washington D.C. has now become the most prosperous area. <br /><br />See: <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-19/beltway-earnings-make-u-s-capital-richer-than-silicon-valley.html" rel="nofollow">Beltway Earnings Make U.S. Capital Richer Than Silicon Valley<br /></a>David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67655880082344827682011-10-26T17:43:34.656-04:002011-10-26T17:43:34.656-04:00Alex Blaze said...
"If we're actually co...Alex Blaze said...<br /><br />"If we're actually concerned with the deficit...."<br /><br />Republicans are only concerned about trimming the deficit as a means to realize their goal of making government so small they can drown it in a bath tub!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-83211975063264718692011-10-26T17:41:14.997-04:002011-10-26T17:41:14.997-04:00Anonymous -- I wish the problem could be solved so...Anonymous -- I wish the problem could be solved so easily. Personal income tax amounts to around 1/3 of federal revenues. I'm not sure how you define "the wealthiest". Let's say the wealthiest pay half of all personal income tax. The Bush tax cuts were around 10%. So, eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest would increase federal revenues by 1/2 of 1/3 of 10% or 1.7%. This is probably optimistic, because higher taxes would tend to depress the economy, but let's ignore that.<br /><br />Increasing federal revenue by 1.7% is only 1/30 of the increase needed to balance the budget. <br /><br />Alex, I'm not sure that increased spending would actually prime the pump. Obama had by far the biggest stimulus in history, and the economy got worse instead of better. Furthermore, increasing taxes would depress the economy, offsetting the potential value of stimulus spending. <br /><br />I don't think there's a magic answer. At some point, we'll have to raise taxes and cut spending, even though that might make the recession worse and even though it will piss off a lot of powerful constituencies. If we don't do that, I think the eventual consequences will be even worse.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-75310500768144119192011-10-26T16:46:13.711-04:002011-10-26T16:46:13.711-04:00If we're actually concerned with the deficit, ...If we're actually concerned with the deficit, we'd do 3 things at once (it used to be possible to pass more than one good law at the same time):<br /><br />1. Increase spending to prime the pump<br /><br />2. Increase taxes on the wealthy (1 and 2 together are just redistributing the wealth downward)<br /><br />3. Deal with the long-term problem the budget deficit is a sign of: The trade deficit. It's a basic law that Keynes recognized (I don't know if he was the first to think of it, though): the trade deficit is always off-set by public and private debt in a country. What we've seen is that debt moved from the private sphere to the public sphere in the past few years, but the economy wasn't healthy beforehand.<br /><br />That last one means we have to start producing things (real things people can touch!) in the US again, and it also means that things are more complicated than increasing spending. So long as the trade deficit is high, we'll have a lot of debt in the US.Alex Blazenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-21146727842688004512011-10-26T16:42:27.430-04:002011-10-26T16:42:27.430-04:00Burnett is even developing the excruciating Maddow...Burnett is even developing the excruciating Maddow rat-a-tat-tat bark. Both women have perfectly comfortable voices when they're calm, but both seem to think (or their bosses do) that excited nasal barking is far more compelling to viewers.<br /><br />I've felt for some time that the reason we have so very few competent top-tier female news broadcasters is because for the last 20 or 30 years, glamorous good looks has been an absolute requirement for the lowliest on-camera TV job, so there's almost no bench anymore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-6065443668072224502011-10-26T16:31:37.256-04:002011-10-26T16:31:37.256-04:00David in Cal said...
"The really scary thing...David in Cal said...<br /><br />"The really scary thing is that cutting federal spending by 1/3 is about what would be needed to balance the budget under today's tax code. This is a reminder how huge and untractable our federal deficit is."<br /><br />Only for those who worship at the altar of Grover Nordquist and refuse to raise revenue by any means, including closing loopholes, ever!! But their's is a political goal and has little to do with real world economics.<br /><br />The rest of us know a sensible approach of taxes and cuts, starting with repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, will get the deficit under control.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10427372302811009292011-10-26T16:19:44.841-04:002011-10-26T16:19:44.841-04:00Swan -- you ask a lot of good questions. The fede...Swan -- you ask a lot of good questions. The federal government collects around $2.5 trillion per year and spends around $4 trillion. A 50% increase in revenues would more or less balance the budget. Presumably a 50% GDP growth would do the job.<br /><br />Clinton's suplus came during an economic boom. But, Clinton certainly deserves credit for not adding a bunch of new spending, as does Newt Gingrich.<br /><br />Of course, we're in a recession, rather than a boom, today. Also, there has been a huge growth in discretionary spending under both Bush and Obama, as well as continued growth in so-called non-discretionary spending. The way federal accounting is done, when SS runs a smaller surplus than before, that hits the budget as a spending increase.<br /><br />In the short run, federal spending cuts would increase unemployment. It might make poverty worse, depending on where the cuts were made. In the short run, spending cuts would likely hurt the economy, though not as badly as tax increases IMHO. <br /><br />The US has been on a credit binge. Sobering up (i.e., big tax increases and/or big spending cuts) will be painful. Many people will turn out to have less money than they have had. However, I think the sooner we face this pain, the better.<br /><br />Not sobering up would be disastrous IMHO. If we keep running multi-trillion dollar deficits, then at some point, the world will stop lending us money and/or charge much higher rates of interest. If the US pays a lot more interest on borrowed money, that increases the deficit even more. We would likely respond by printing money, leading to high inflation. That would cause the stock market to tank, as foreign investors got out of dollar-based investments. It would wipe out people's savings and the value of pensions (except for lucky few whose pensions go up with inflation, such as federal employees.) High and uncertain inflation would cause a worse recession than the one we're in now.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-73022866725327013872011-10-26T15:48:37.560-04:002011-10-26T15:48:37.560-04:00The local yellow rag The Arizona Republic(an) forg...The local yellow rag The Arizona Republic(an) forgot to mention the $12,500 per person exemption as well.gravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29013047113660229162011-10-26T15:18:24.386-04:002011-10-26T15:18:24.386-04:00David-in-CA, how much would GDP have to grow to ba...David-in-CA, how much would GDP have to grow to balance the budget? What assumptions would such growth include about some of the drivers of today's lack of balance -- we were in balance briefly in the not too distant past, you know. Was it merely a huge increase in discretionary spending that got us here? <br /><br />If it's unthinkable that Perry (or some other President) could cut spending by 1/3, then by how much, in your august opinion, could they cut spending? What might the next GOP President be able to cut? Other than decreasing current deficits, what impact would such cuts as you deem achievable have on poverty and economic growth?Swannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-88821652288798446512011-10-26T13:45:47.279-04:002011-10-26T13:45:47.279-04:00Good pickup, Alex. Your link oddly says, "Gov...Good pickup, Alex. Your link oddly says, "Government Revenue in the United States has steadily increased from seven percent of GDP in 1902 to over 35 percent today." But, the accompanying chart shows government revenue having declined from a high of 35% of GDP to just over 30%. <br /><br />Perry says he would make his tax cuts work by cutting federal spending by a third. Of course, cuts of that magnitude are unthinkable. The really scary thing is that cutting federal spending by 1/3 is about what would be needed to balance the budget under today's tax code. This is a reminder how huge and untractable our federal deficit is.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-35971132175134265762011-10-26T13:23:50.137-04:002011-10-26T13:23:50.137-04:00Total taxes as a percentage of GDP have dropped of...Total taxes as a percentage of GDP have dropped off in recent years:<br /><br />http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history<br /><br />While real GDP has flatlined:<br /><br />http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_real_gdp_history<br /><br />None of these tax plans would ever get through Congress, so they're more useful as indicators of how much each candidate will pander to their base/skew the debate to the right. Rick Perry wants to cut taxes on the rich and not even pretend to care about revenue. That's one well-played pander.Alex Blazenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76515465592790196952011-10-26T13:14:32.384-04:002011-10-26T13:14:32.384-04:00I'd cut the talking heads a break this time. I...I'd cut the talking heads a break this time. It's an absurd, complex, poorly described plan that would cut revenue drastically & they have to pretend to take it seriously.<br /><br />Why they have to pretend this is a more interesting question than watching them flail around trying.Downpuppyhttp://downpuppy.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-70633851307026243102011-10-26T13:07:06.786-04:002011-10-26T13:07:06.786-04:00Bob Somerby says,
Taxes are about as low as they...Bob Somerby says, <br /><br /><i>Taxes are about as low as they have ever been!</i> <br /><br />A correct version of his statement is: <br /><br /><i>Federal income taxes are about as low as they have ever been since the mid-1940's.</i><br /><br />See: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/income_tax_history<br /><br />Matthews's statement referred to "taxes", not "Federal income taxes". I don't know what taxes Matthews had in mind. However, his claim that "taxes are heavy in this country" is correct if one looks at total taxes, i.e., including state income tax, state and local sales tax, Social Security and Medicare assessments, property tax, estate tax, etc. I think total taxes paid today are indeed about as heavy as they ever were.David in Calnoreply@blogger.com