DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on December 06, 2011, 03:30:08 PM
-
Cuomo and Legislative Leaders Agree on Tax Deal
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tuesday, December 6, 2011 -- 1:59 PM EST
-----
Cuomo and Legislative Leaders Agree on Tax Deal
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and legislative leaders on Tuesday announced that they had reached an agreement to raise taxes on New York state’s wealthiest residents as part of a deal to overhaul the state’s tax rates.
The leaders, seeking simultaneously to make the state’s income tax system more progressive and to boost tax collections during a down economy, announced their agreement as lawmakers began to arrive at the Capitol for an expected special session of the Legislature later this week.
The tentative agreement would not only raise taxes for the wealthy, but would also cut taxes for the middle class, by creating multiple new tax brackets and tax rates.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/nyregion/cuomo-and-legislative-leaders-agree-on-tax-deal.html?emc=na (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/nyregion/cuomo-and-legislative-leaders-agree-on-tax-deal.html?emc=na)
-
So Cuomo has his read my lips moment:
Any increase in tax rates for the wealthy would mark a reversal for Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, who ran for governor last year on a platform of opposing tax increases and said that increasing such taxes would hurt the state by motivating wealthy residents to move elsewhere.
-
The Feds will be doing it before long, read my lips, or no read my lips. It's a simple matter of mathematics.
BSB
-
Indeed....a mathematical abyss that'll take down the country. You do realize that less and less people, under these plans are loaded with paying for more and more of the country to function? Great article that painted the grim picture facing CA, where a state with a population in the millions, only has a small handful of folks actually burdened with the task of supporting the state. Folks that can simply up and leave if they want, incl their $$$'s with them
Not to mention, that those "rich folks'" income fluctuates far more than most, depending on what their stocks are doing. It's not a solid assembly line of money. In a heartbeat, that money could dry up, if stocks tank, and the state that is relying on that, goes down the drain even faster
Apply that to the entire country, via the Fed, and the mathematics are indeed clear. It becomes unsustainable, which it already has here in CA
-
Of course . It's the season to buy votes.
Drive that wedge between the people, i got mine and you got yours. United we stand, divided we fall.
This is interesting:
For the last three years, individuals who earned more than $200,000 a year, and couples who earned more than $300,000, have also been subjected to a tax surcharge called a “millionaires’ tax.”
Under the proposal announced Tuesday, for married couples filing jointly, income from $40,000 to $150,000 would be taxed at 6.45 percent; from $150,000 to $300,000 at 6.65 percent; from $300,000 to $2 million at 6.85 percent, and over $2 million at 8.82 percent.
Changing the tax rates and brackets would allow the state to replace some, but not all, of the revenue to be lost when the so-called millionaires’ tax expires on Dec. 31.
-
Read my lips. We will being raising taxes on the wealthiest among us. We will be cutting back on Medicare, Medicare plan D, Medicaid, and other entitlements such as Veterans benefits. The next 20 years or so are going to be known as the suck it up years one way or another. So, we can do it the hard way, and agree on a plan, or do it the very hard way, and stumble along like we're doing now until we get knocked sideways.
The only question for us as individuals is, are you ready?
BSB
-
Not to mention, that those "rich folks income fluctuates far more than most, depending on what their stocks are doing. It's not a solid assembly line of money. In a heartbeat, that money could dry up, if stocks tank, and the state that is relying on that, goes down the drain even faster
we`ve all seen large businesses disappear and somehow people do not not equate that to money loss to the owners. also when a company downsize it`s also making less money meaning less tax money for it tp pay. meaning the taxes might encourage increased downsizing. notice very few companies are even trying to increase production.downsizing is the few income choices at this moment.
-
I hope some of those New Yorker wealthy folks wise up
and get the hell out of dodge and move to Texas
where we will treat them with ZERO STATE INCOME TAX,
a business friendly environment, and zero demonization
for being successful and wealthy.
I got this e-mail today from our background check
company.....fricking California politicians being a
pain in the ass to business....hope business leaves
California and move here too!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qmn6lqN2huw/SvGV7-WibNI/AAAAAAAAAC0/HtzaKKKei3k/s320/bgcheader_logo.gif)
Amendment to California Civil Code 1786
Goes Into Effect January 1, 2012
Effective January 1, 2012, employers must provide consumers with the web address of the screening company used to conduct the background check. This amendment to California Civil Code 1786 was signed by the governor in September 2010.
This amendment is in addition to current California law requiring employers to provide extensive consumer notification before a background check is conducted by an outside screening company. Consumer notifications must:
State the purpose of the report.
Give the name, address, and telephone number of the screening company.
Include a summary of consumer rights to see and copy any report about the subject of the report.
Include a box to check allowing the consumer to request a copy of the report.
Clients should immediately check their background screening notices to applicants and employees against our current Disclosure and Authorization Notice sample and make the necessary changes in order to comply with the amendment to California Civil Code 1786.
The Disclosure and Authorization Notice sample is located in the Compliance section of your backgroundchecks.com account.
For more information on how this update may affect your screening program and how backgroundchecks.com can help, please contact customer service.
-
Read my lips. We will being raising taxes on the wealthiest among us. We will be cutting back on Medicare, Medicare plan D, Medicaid, and other entitlements such as Veterans benefits. The next 20 years or so are going to be known as the suck it up years one way or another. So, we can do it the hard way, and agree on a plan, or do it the very hard way, and stumble along like we're doing now until we get knocked sideways.
The only question for us as individuals is, are you ready?
BSB
Sure I'm ready, but when i hear politicians saying we are all in this together, i take that to mean everybody is in this, together. So i find it surprising that they would raise taxes on one group, then lower them for another, because you know, that just reeks of togetherness.
-
Not all, and perhaps not even most, really wealthy people get their income from dividends, profit, and interest on stocks and bonds. If you have $20 million in assets, you simply send what you need to get by and keep the rest invested, quite often in private businesses or real estate. You do not need to declare any income from the sale of stock until you actually sell at a profit.
Most of the top 1% do not start businesses or hire any substantial numbers of people. To say they do is simply fiction.
-
Which really doesn't address my question at all. If we are in this together, where is the togetherness.
-
Well, BT, if you'd like that to mean one group against another that's your business. I don't see it that way at all. We're in a bind, those who can help via taxes, should. You don't ask a group of fat middle aged men to fight your wars for you. You send in the ones who are fit. That doesn't divide the two groups. That's just the way it is. Those who can, do. Those who can't, do something else.
Besides, lets stop pretending the Bush tax cuts have helped. They haven't. They were in place in 2008 when the shit hit the fan, and they're still in place. What more proof do you want? Oh, and if you want to return everybody's taxes to the pre-cut %, that's fine with me. But for Christ sake, lets get in on, times a wasting.
BSB
-
Well, BT, if you'd like that to mean one group against another that's your business.
yeah that is exactly what i mean.
Oh, and if you want to return everybody's taxes to the pre-cut %, that's fine with me. But for Christ sake, lets get in on, times a wasting.
That would be fine and reek of togetherness.
-
The article I was referring to earlier
----------------------------------------------
Are high-income taxpayers the enemy?
It's difficult to divine exactly what the Occupy demonstrators in California cities and on university campuses are protesting.
The former appear to be denouncing the greed of the "one percent" – those with the highest incomes – while the latter are opposing fee increases that university boards are imposing to compensate for reductions in state appropriations.
Whatever the underlying rationales may be, the media have lumped both varieties together and issues have been subordinated to verbal clashes over occupation tactics and official responses, some of which have been needlessly violent.
If there is a connection, at least in California, between the on- and off-campus occupations, it's to be found in tax system dynamics. And it's less a connection than a dichotomy.
The off-campus protesters, apparently, are incensed that those sitting atop the economic pyramid enjoy so much of the bounty.
In California, according to the most recent Franchise Tax Board data (2009), those with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more – just 34,000 tax returns out of 14.6 million – had 11.8 percent of the $881 billion total.
That may sound outrageous to some, but as recession gripped the economy in the last few years, the number of top-drawer taxpayers and their incomes dropped sharply – by more than 27 percent just from 2008 to 2009, for example, far more than any other income category.
We needn't weep for the wealthy; they can take care of themselves. But their incomes are much more volatile than those of us who earn paychecks because they are much more dependent on capital gains from stocks and other investments, and when recession hits, their income streams decline sharply.
That's where the effect on college fees comes into the equation.
California has a particularly progressive personal income tax system, which means that it's extraordinarily dependent on high-income taxpayers.
In fact, the top 1 percent of taxpayers generate about half of the state's income taxes, and income taxes constitute about 60 percent of the state's general fund revenues.
When incomes of those at the top decline, state income tax revenues take a beating and the state budget gets squeezed, forcing governors and legislators to either reduce spending or engage in funny-money financing.
And college and university appropriations are one of the few areas of the budget not protected by constitutional provisions, such as K-12 school aid, or subject to federal law.
Logically, therefore, those campus demonstrators should be praying for the much-despised one-percenters to enjoy big increases in their taxable incomes so that higher education appropriations could be increased and fees could decline.
Somehow, one doubts that will occur. (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/29/4085623/dan-walters-are-high-income-taxpayers.html)
-
BT, are you agreeing that returning everyone to the pre Bush tax cuts position would be fair? I can't tell.
BSB
-
If the government can justify the need to raise income taxes then those taxes should be raised on everyone. And if the method is to allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire then so be it.
Shouldn't hurt the poor that much since everyone says the poor didn't benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts.
-
Well, I'm good with that. We have to work both sides of the street here. Cut spending, and raise revenue.
BSB
-
What if cutting spending did raise revenue?
A growing economy would be a nice thing to see.
How do tax increases grow the economy?
-
That does seem to be the big gorilla in the room, that of the exponential spending going on in DC. How many times have we heard, from BOTH the GOP and Democrats that one of the worse things you can do in a recession and to inhibit a growing economy is raising taxes. Yet that seems to be what everyone wants to talk about
Is it because its politically easier to do?? The cowards way to politics?
There's a great line, that I think has been referenced before, and if so, it's worth repeating. "There will come a time when you must choose between doing what is right and what is easy"
-
What if cutting spending did raise revenue?
How would that happen?
-
What if cutting spending did raise revenue?
How would that happen?
It is the same principal as planting more acreage.
You can plant more densely and farm more intensely on a fixed acreage but you get near the maximum possible productivity of the soil and you strain the soil, so that you gain only a bit more this year and loose the same next year.
Or you can farm additional acres , and gain production without harming the land .
If businesses and individuals are already being taxed near their maximum ability to pay , then every bit more tax is money removed from productive ability and every bit less tax is money made availible to productive capability.
Under which circumstance would a successfull business hire more persons? If the tax is reasonable perhaps they hire four , taxes a bit lower might allow them to hire five.
It is hard to dispute that high Taxation is contrary to employment , this is an easily proven point.
So do you want to tax more people , or tax fewer?
-
Umm so how does cutting govt spending raise govt revenue.
-
How do tax increases on everyone, especially "the rich" grow the economy?
-
Separate issue.
I'm seeking clarification from plane on his hypothesis about govt spending.
-
too much going on, no one thing will solve this.
tax everybody
get businesses to hire unemployed
lower medical cost and I`m not talking what patients payments.
this is just a start
-
Separate issue.
I'm seeking clarification from plane on his hypothesis about govt spending.
Ok, but I think we can manage to multitask, and address the issue I asked......How do tax increases on everyone, especially "the rich" grow the economy?
-
It lowers the amount of deficit while at the same time lowering the money supply to thus lessening the hidden taxes of inflation on the economy.
-
That makes no sense from a business or personal standpoint. The less money people have, by way of higher taxes, the less they spend, be it on necessities or more so, wants --> less sales tax revenues and decreased economic growth. The less money businesses have, by way of higher taxes, the more they horde what $$$ they do have, the less they expand, the less they hire --> less income tax revenues and decreased economic growth
It's what both Republicans and Democrats have said for many an administration when it came to taxes and recessions
-
I believe we a discussing primarily personal income tax. And i guarantee you inflation will take a bigger bite out of your spending power than the few points the average joe has to pay in additional taxes. Remember the rich benefited from the Bush tax cuts so the average joe shouldn't feel the bite at all.
And i just think it best if taxes must be raised and if their taxes raising is justified then every person who draws a paycheck should roll up their sleeves and help out. For the fairness.
-
And what i am really against is this 99% vs the 1% bullshit. We are americans damnit and if the country is in trouble i expect 100% participation in helping to fix it. Just like how we came together after pearl harbor.
-
And i just think it best if taxes must be raised and if their taxes raising is justified then every person who draws a paycheck should roll up their sleeves and help out. For the fairness.
See, I understand the Principle of that concept, but how is it we got the the point that "if taxes must be raised...."
Why MUST they be raised, when its been made crystal clear, from both Dems & Republicans, that during times of recession/depression, one of the worst things you can do to stifle any economic recovery is to raise taxes, especially on "the rich" and businesses??
Why MUST they be raised, when its not a revenue problem that has brought us this economic disaster?? It's rampant out of control Government spending problem. You rightly hilighted the Dept of Education as another good example of overt Government bureaucracy and spending
-
I don't believe i said they must be raised. I believe i said if the govt can justify raising taxes that would be how they should do it. I was very careful in that stipulation.
Now you know and i know that the GOP has made noises about cutting spending but they haven't come up with anything that significantly reduces spending now. Meanwhile we borrow 40cents on the dollar to keep this sinking ship afloat.
Is it any wonder our creditworthiness is questioned?
-
So, as it currently stands, no one can justify why taxes MUST be raised, yet that's all that's talked about, while barely a word is spoken on when & where the gorilla-in-the-room spending beast, that brought us the massive debt & deficits, and need to borrow 40cents on the dollar to keep this sinking ship afloat, is to be tackled
Some folks, like myself want to do what's right, however too many want to talk & simply do what's easy :(
-
Let's see your immediate spending cuts and then we can determine if raising taxes is justified. 1.4 trillion worth, i believe. And lets not count war savings.
Ball in you court.
-
Umm, I'm still waiting for the ball that justifies that we "must raise taxes", in a recession. Ball still hasn't left your court. But to tease you a bit, it's a 5% cut to every agency, across the board, to start with, along with consideration for abolishing certain agencies all together, such as the Dept of Ed.
One more time, the cowardly lazy talk of simply raising taxes is all that seems to want to be talked about, while barely a word is spoken on when & where the gorilla-in-the-room spending beast, that brought us the massive debt & deficits, and need to borrow 40cents on the dollar to keep this sinking ship afloat, is to be tackled
Some folks, like myself want to do what's right, however too many want to talk & simply do what's easy
-
In case you missed it the first time:
I don't believe i said they must be raised. I believe i said if the govt can justify raising taxes that would be how they should do it. I was very careful in that stipulation.
-
So how much does 5% across the board save us?
-
In case you missed it the first time:
I don't believe i said they must be raised. I believe i said if the govt can justify raising taxes that would be how they should do it. I was very careful in that stipulation.
That's strange.....I don't recall claiming you ever did. Imagine my surprise when you make it seem as if I did. ......... not. :o
I'm merely asking for a justification in YOUR use of "...if taxes MUST be raised.....". My bad, if you can't seem to come to any rational answer to that. Perhaps there really isn't one....which is ironically the main point being made.
But let's keep talking about what's easy vs what's right
-
I'm merely asking for a justification in YOUR use of "...if taxes MUST be raised.....".
What?
Are you asking why i insist that they be across the board? and not just on the rich?
-
I'm asking as to why taxes MUST be raised, during a recession. I've seen no "justification" from anyone, including the government, as was your parameters. In fact, I've seen quite the opposite reference of rhetoric, during a recession
It's merely easier to raise taxes than to do what's right, in cutting the out of control spending, which is causing us to borrow 40cents on the dollar to keep this sinking ship afloat
-
Why are you asking me that question?
-
I guess that answers my question (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16313.msg136110#msg136110), thank you very much
-
Glad we cleared that up. So how much does your 5% save us?
-
If its across the board, its a great start. I'll just point to the Ryan plan for an additional grasp of what the right thing to do is, vs what's easy
-
If.
Such a small word, but such huge implications when it is missed.
The issue as I saw it wasn't 'taxes MUST be raised', it was 'if taxes MUST be raised...'
But carry on...I do so enjoy watching.
-
Close....you're missing another, albeit larger word.....JUSTIFICATION, for why they must be raised, during a recession, if its indeed what the Fed wants to do
Still waiting for that one, which not so surprisingly, everyone seems to be pleading the 5th, on
But by all means, lets keep talking about what's easy vs what's right
-
So no dollar figure on your 5% plan?
If your reach the budget deficit amount then certainly there would be no justification for raising taxes.
And as you boasted you are not one to take the easy way out. So show us the hard way.
-
So no dollar figure on your 5% plan?
Add up all the money spent, in every dept, and take 5% off of that. It's up to each dept head to figure out where exactly to make their cuts. There's your start, then continue with the Ryan plan
-
So you have no figures? How do you know 5% is enough? And are there depts that don't get cuts?
-
Ooo, lemme see if I can try a BT tactic:
In case you missed it the 1st time
I never claimed "it was enough" I made it crystal clear that it was a start.
And no, not 1 dept gets a pass, but to try and play that all the cuts can be made now to balance the budget is a ludicrous strawman tactic, since it took a few years to drag us down into this debt abyss. Until the economy starts to reasonably grow again, we're just going to have to settle with a decreasing level of debt each year
And hint, RAISING taxes on everyone, isn't going to grow the economy. Republicans and Democrats alike have been touting that for many an administration
-
Some folks, like myself want to do what's right, however too many want to talk & simply do what's easy
So where are the numbers that show you are doing right?
or is that just easy rhetoric?
-
5% across the board to start with isn't doing what's right?? wow :o
-
How would a 5% decrease in government spending affect the economy?
-
It will start giving consumers and businesses confidence that the government is starting to get their act together, to be fiscally responsible. That confidence will go along ways in starting to establish some much needed certainty, that is currently sorely missing in today's economical climate.
-
It will start giving consumers and businesses confidence that the government is starting to get their act together, to be fiscally responsible. That confidence will go along ways in starting to establish some much needed certainty, that is currently sorely missing in today's economical climate.
That sounds like boilerplate talking points. Where does govt spending go when they spend it?
Does it buy goods and services? Does it fund R&D, does it pay salaries? How would that impact the economy?
-
It pays the Government beast, is where it goes. Level after endless level of bureacracy and government employees, that are both paid and pensions provided for by our tax dollars. You highlighed the Dept of Education, yourself, so i have no idea why you're basically arguing with yourself. Government makes nothing, it produces nothing but more Government workers & regulations. It is precisely those ever growing salaries, pensions, and increasing levels of taxes and regulations that blankets businesses with uncertainty and stagnating the economy.
And your answer is more of it?? I guess that would be easier, but it sure as hell isn't the right thing to do
-
No reason to get defensive.
So these payroll checks to federal emplyess, are they spent on local goods and services in the locales in which these employees reside, benefitting those local businesses that provides those goods and services? Do federal employees eat food, consume energy, buy clothing and shelter? Will that have an impact on the economy if they are spending 5% less?
-
So your answer is more if it, SOP, move along. Yea, I got that the 1st time. Yea, much easier. Here's a hint, a 5% cost cutting across the board is obviously going to change the habits of those Federal employees no longer working for the Fed. It generally means what it means to the rest of us who lost far more jobs in the private sector. You find work elsewhere, and budget better until then
-
So your answer is more if it, SOP, move along. Yea, I got that the 1st time. Yea, much easier. Here's a hint, a 5% cost cutting across the board is obviously going to change the habits of those Federal employees no longer working for the Fed. It generally means what it means to the rest of us who lost far more jobs in the private sector. You find work elsewhere, and budget better until then
It would behoove you to examine your own answers rather than projecting what my answers might be?
So the loss of those jobs will have zero effect on whatever locales these employees reside? Is that your position?
-
Umm so how does cutting govt spending raise govt revenue.
I don't think it would directly.
The direct effect of reduction in spending would be a reduced need for revenue, which is the opposite side of the lever.
The reduction of taxation, which might then be more affordable ,would have the direct effect of reducing the load that the productive economy must carry.
An economy that is carrying less government can carry more privite persons.
-
Welcome to the discussion again Plane.
What i am trying to discover is what can be expected from reducing spending to approximately 18% of gdp with taxation also set to 18% of gdp or even less if justified.
We are currently spending somewhere around 24% of gdp if rough figures are to be believed with no real understanding of what is on books and what is off books and how accounting is handled for programs like SS and Medicare.
What do you think the net result of a 5-10% cut in federal spending would be to a city like warner robins?
-
So your answer is more if it, SOP, move along. Yea, I got that the 1st time. Yea, much easier. Here's a hint, a 5% cost cutting across the board is obviously going to change the habits of those Federal employees no longer working for the Fed. It generally means what it means to the rest of us who lost far more jobs in the private sector. You find work elsewhere, and budget better until then
It would behoove you to examine your own answers rather than projecting what my answers might be?
So the loss of those jobs will have zero effect on whatever locales these employees reside? Is that your position?
Well considering you're playing some sort of zero-sum game, where if anything negative might affect the economy, we can rain all over it, so that we can can all go back to the easy talk of raising taxes again, which have been demonstrated over and over again, as one of the worst things you can do, in a recession. You know that, I know that, many a politician has spouted it and has been pasted here for all to see. This goal of yours to try and convince everyone that everyone's taxes need to go up, "to be fair", so that not just "the rich" are targeted, while noble and principled, misses the problem entirely
The way you outline your efforts to argue with me, has a position logically to maintain some status quo of big government, because if government employees are laid off, it can effect the economy negatively. I don't have a position that there is some zero effect. There *gasp* might be a small negative effect, as those Federal workers might have to find new jobs, like the millions more are having to do in the private sector. The point being the mess has been caused by rampant out of control spending, at all levels of Government. The housing meltdown is what lit the economic fire, and Obama's (democrats') liberal policies of spending is the gasoline that was poured all over it. THAT's what has to stop.
We can't take back the tarp money, or the bailouts, or all the Solydra's this administration has payed off. So, rather than take the easy way out and just keep harping on taxes, which will inhibit economic growth all the more, we start somwhere, and my somewhere was a 5% cut to all Federal Departments. Then we adopt the Ryan Plan
It's a start, but at least its the right thing to do
-
And what i am really against is this 99% vs the 1% bullshit. We are americans damnit and if the country is in trouble i expect 100% participation in helping to fix it. Just like how we came together after pearl harbor.
Well said!
There is no undertaxed component of the economy, but there is a big disparity in who produces and who consumes the benefits of the government.
This is a disparity that could be shrunk.
-
Again please don't project what you think my position is. State your position and explain it the best you can. You have already stated that raising taxes during a recession will adversely impact the recovery. I am just wondering if you have thoroughly considered what the impact of cutting the budget by 5%-10% at one fell swoop would be.
-
I have, the cutting is merely a start. As long as we do NOT raise taxes, the impact should be minimal, as companies and industries start to grasp some certainty coming out of DC, and start opening up their expansion projects and ideas, with the $$$ they've been hording.
It's the right thing to do, in order to fix the problem Obama and the Democrats have wrought with the exponential spending they've been pushing. What's far more easier of course is to talk about taxes, because its unfair that the 1% should be made to shoulder even more of the country's burdens. While it is grossly unfair, it fails to address the problems that are at the heart of our economic mess, and in fact, will only saturate the blanket of incertainty, that much more, and perpetuate the status quo
More Jobs --> More Income taxes into the Fed/More spending by consumers thus more in Sales taxes ---> More revenue --> Goodbye debt & deficits (eventually)
-
Do you have any idea of what percentage of the workforce is employed by the federal government either directly or indirectly as contract labor?
Do you think the number of soon to be unemployed federal workers would be abhou the equivalent of the armed forces downsizing after WWII?
Do you think the economy in its current state is prepared to absorb those workers?
Just being the devils advocate here, but it seems to me that the issue is deeper than major party talking points of tax the rich or cut the spendings or its all their fault.
Nothing is easy. Just leave this place better than you found it. That's the best you can do.
-
What do you think the net result of a 5-10% cut in federal spending would be to a city like warner robins?
Warner Robins is peculuar, our local economy depends so much on government spending that each per cent of reduction is practicly a percent of reduction in the local economy.
Howsomever the last time that we had a BRAC the base that they closed was Kelly AFB in San Antonio Texas. Warner Robins had to adzorb the workload that Kelly released. We had hundreds of Texans moving here driving up home prices and rents causing a building boom. New hangars had to be built and contractors from six states away were bidding on the contracts. Bizzare new buildings on wheels were constructed to convert hangars built for B-24 s to hangars suited for the C-5. San Antonios loss was our gain.
So less government in total made more government spending locally in this locality. If RAFB had been closed I would have been moved to Kelly probly.
Chaos theroy applys, the situation is too complex to predict in detail. The best predictions are the gross ones.
-
Do you have any idea of what percentage of the workforce is employed by the federal government either directly or indirectly as contract labor?
It's MASSIVE.....that's part of the problem, and we, the tax payers pay for it, and their pensions. Why do you think you have all these Government Union uprisings in places like Ohio & Wisconsin. they need the tax payers to pay for their ever growing size and numbers
Do you think the economy in its current state is prepared to absorb those workers?
It would have to, under my plan. I think I already referenced that there may be some negative issues to begin with, but we have to fix the problem, and I'm going with the right thing to do vs the easy thing to do
Nothing is easy. Just leave this place better than you found it. That's the best you can do.
The status quo isn't it. Raising taxes on everyone during a recession isn't it either
-
All of the "cuts" that have been proposed lately were cuts in the new budget that didn't amount to making the new budget smaller than the previous years spending.
A freeze would be a bigger cut.
A spending freeze would automaticly be across the board.
Since inflation would not stop there would be an automatic across the board reduction in buying power for each government agency , contractor , employee and retireee.
If the comittment of the government was firm, the investing community might benefit from the improvement in predictability.
If there were any growth in the economy the government would become a smaller purportion of the economy ,an improvement in the teeth to tail ratio.
-
So adding some untold millions to the unemployment roles is the right thing to do?
Wouldn't the states be liable for any uninsurance payments? is that how it works with fed employees . It does with service members.
-
Yes
-
So adding some untold millions to the unemployment roles is the right thing to do?
Isn't this the exact effect to be expected in the aftermath of a large tax increase?
-
Hope you have plenty of ammo
-
So adding some untold millions to the unemployment roles is the right thing to do?
Isn't this the exact effect to be expected in the aftermath of a large tax increase?
Define large. Would you consider allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire a large tax increase?
How much would the revenue increase as a percentage of GDP?
-
So adding some untold millions to the unemployment roles is the right thing to do?
Isn't this the exact effect to be expected in the aftermath of a large tax increase?
Define large. Would you consider allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire a large tax increase?
How much would the revenue increase as a percentage of GDP?
I am not qualified to quantify.
I don't even believe in it.
A large tax increase might not improve revenue at all, if it were crippleing to the money making businesses then it would be too large to increase revenue, too big to succeed.
A tax decrease that helps improve an overtaxed situation might increase revenue as the lower tax rate is applied to a healthyer economy.
These are unquantified principals.
The amount of improvement isn't predictable , forcasting a future situation from a present that we don't really understand , no.
Tell me if right now we are taxed at an optimum rate , a sub optimum rate or a superoptimum rate , if we really knew that we would know at least which direction to move .
-
Right now we are spending 24% of GDP Income taxes bring in 14% GDP.
Seems everything i have read says 18% both ways is the right number.
Question which is the best path to get us there and how much time do we have?
-
Hmm
Maybe spending cuts may not be needed at all. Awhile back i did help a friend of mine get money owed to the city. By checking out a museums expense records and found over 800k hold up in some account that the museum did not know existed. Remember most cases alot of money is not accounted for in government spending so it's very possible money would end up unaccounted for years.
We're all very much aware a lot of money flow into spending but not much oversite is done . But this require the reciever of funding to be fairly incompetent. What are the chances of a government dept. being that bad?
What I'm getting at ,an extensive audit may yeild some serious money and definately close down things
-
How much bigger would GDP be if it were fettered less with taxes?
How much would increases in taxes cause the GDP to shrink?
It isn't really like cutting a pie, it is more like harvesting blood from a cow that you want to live through the experience.
The Masi drink blood and milk without reducing their heard, I suppose that after centuries of experience they know how to avoid weakening the cattle .
If I had to live on a blood and milk diet and tend the heard I might not know exactly how much harvesting I could get away with, but I think I would definately want to err on the side of caution and bleed them the least I could .
-
Kimba
I agree that a complete federal govt audit needs to happen including the federal reserve, preferably by an outside source.
Plane this chart might prove helpful
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png/800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png)
-
At least two sources and if any of the dept gets differing results from the two audits gets a complete overhaul. Don't waste money finding the problem. Just start over or get rid of it if deemed unneeded
Awhile back my town has many outreach programs for the homeless, taking massive amounts of tax money. But alot of these programs are empty because no homeless people qualify to be in them so they just draw money for no reason.
i'm willing to bet this is not a rare occurance.
-
i'm willing to bet this is not a rare occurrence.
Of course it isn't. best time to sell stuff to the govt is in sept. They have to spend budgetted funds by the end of the month or they may not get as much the next budget round.
-
I know a guy who nievely went underbudget. He's not around anymore.
-
The article I was referring to earlier
----------------------------------------------
Are high-income taxpayers the enemy?
....Logically, therefore, those campus demonstrators should be praying for the much-despised one-percenters to enjoy big increases in their taxable incomes so that higher education appropriations could be increased and fees could decline.
Somehow, one doubts that will occur. (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/29/4085623/dan-walters-are-high-income-taxpayers.html)
and here's another one along that theme of battling insanity
Brown counting on the 1 percent to save California
Governor wants to raise rates on the highest earners, who already pay nearly half of all income taxes and whose incomes can fluctuate wildly
California's budget is in a constant state of peril or, perhaps more accurately, a budgetary inferno, because of, as Gov. Jerry Brown accurately noted in his recent Open Letter to the People of California, "years of failing to match spending with tax revenues as budget gimmicks instead of honest budgeting became the norm." Ironically Brown's new proposal to raise tax revenue employs the same old approach to extract additional dollars from Californians rather than make tough, structural reforms and better steward existing resources.
It's has become almost cliché to say "California does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem," but the underlying issue is much more fragile than that. The state has a preferred source of money – high-income earners – but if Brown is successful in raising taxes on the state's wealthiest residents, he runs the risk of milking the source dry. He also rests his hopes for the state's long-term fiscal solvency on the most volatile incomes.
With great fanfare Gov. Brown this week announced his latest quick fix to save the state from further financial ruin with the predictable solution of a ballot initiative next year to raise taxes on residents of the Golden State. The proposal aims to raise $7 billion over five years by boosting the state sales tax for everyone and the income tax on people who make over $250,000 a year. The state may face a budget shortfall of $13 billion in fiscal 2012.
Increasing the sales tax, even modestly, hits consumers in all income brackets, many already reeling from the lagging economy. And raising taxes on the highest-income earners is even riskier business because it further concentrates the source of state income. The top 1 percent of income earners in California already account for nearly one-half of all revenue. And according to the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office, the portion of state taxes paid by that income bracket has fluctuated "from just above 30 percent in the early 1990s to nearly 50 percent in 2000 at the height of the tech boom."
The top 1 percent's "share of the personal income tax burden rises or falls with their share of taxable income," reports the LAO. "Compared to other taxpayers, this group reports proportionately much more business income and capital gains, which are far more volatile than wage and salary income." Relying so heavily on the highest earners further narrows the tax base and puts the state at the risk of further insolvency. It also makes budgetary planning more difficult.
Brown's proposal has rightly been met with instant opposition from business leaders, taxpayers groups and Republican legislators but governor Brown and his fellow Democrats and union allies have begun, already, stringing their violins claiming that if taxes are not increased schools will suffer and public safety programs will be cut – two arguments that usually resonate with Californians.
For Brown and his ilk the state faces a revenue shortage – that is, the state government is in "need" of more money to spend. But the real issue is that legislators and bureaucrats in Sacramento for too long have been poor stewards of taxpayer dollars.
The Legislature repeatedly has misfired by crafting budget plans based on one-time revenue – windfall tax collections from stock sales – assuming such revenues would continue year to year. The result has been huge budget shortfalls. Earlier this year when the state reported an $11.8 billion windfall, the state's finance director, Ana Matosantos, said the influx of cash was "almost entirely from the top 1 percent of earners," the Wall Street Journal reported.
New York Times bestselling author Robert Frank's book "The High Beta Rich" describes precisely how dysfunctional California's fiduciaries operate. He wrote that "the state would treat each year's windfall from the rich as a reoccurring income stream, allocating the long-term programs in education, health care, pensions or other areas."
But, Frank observed, "When the revenues from the rich dried up, the spending continued, leading to multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls."
Now, Gov, Brown is attempting to continue this dysfunctional tradition.
In the past, as Frank writes, state lawmakers "preferred to spend the money from the rich while they had it rather than worrying about its end." California voters ought to ponder this sad reality when considering the governor's tax plans.
The debate is not an ideological battle over tax increases. Instead it is about failed management of existing resources and poor understanding of the dynamics of state revenue. California legislators – Republican and Democrat – have perpetually failed to budget properly. Gov. Brown's latest proposal continues that legacy.
Article (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/state-330661-income-tax.html)
-
san francisco USED to have alot of big companies headquatered here,but every single one that left did not move to a city in california it`s always to another state. remember california is a green state meaning even the lifestyle is abit more difficult.
I`ll ask again why live here?
-
Because for you, that is where home is.
-
Home is where you hang your hat. And thanks to CA politicians, more and more folks are hanging their hat elsewhere, taking both their businesses, jobs, and $$$'s with them, with more and more of the folks staying depending on that very Government to survive, if not working for them.
Neat little viscious cycle they have going
-
Home is where family is, if memory serves, extended family in Kimba's case. Moving might not be as easy as moving your hat.
-
Merely referencing where home is, that's all
-
I plan to leave s.f. in a few years but stay at a nearby suburb el ceriito.. I have a massive amount of family and friends living there. like everywhere else it has less business restrictions.. and no recycling penalties.but I`ll miss the food but not the big city paranoia. tired of watching myself around people. I`m not saying thiers no crime in el cerrito but you can relax more there than s.f..
oops and the arts. not many big museums in the burbs.
-
I lived in Hayward for a couple of years during the early 60's. East Bays OK
-
Kimba,
If you moove to Macon Ga. I will introduce you to the Chineese guy that lives there.
-
I recall seeing a Chinese restaurant in Macon once when there was some accident on the Interstate and we had to drive slowly through town. I bet there is more than one Chinese guy in Macon. I have yet to see a Chinese restaurant in the US that had anyone but other Chinese waiters and cooks.
I do recall a Chinese restaurant in Santo Domingo I went once where only the owner was Chinese and he was not in attendance. The worst fried rice, ever. Including when I have tried to make it in my own kitchen.
-
lol
interesting thing about my people in america is thiers a 70% chance if I did meet that guy from macon I probly could only talk nto him in english. chinese only hang out with chinese from the same village because our dielect is so different we sound like gibberish to each other. I remember the first time I heard mandarin I just won`t believe that`s chinese. took me almost a year to accept it. I`ve met many people who thinks I`m a hillbilly because of my dialect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishanese)
sadly wiki refined it`s definition ,before it said it`s incomprehensable,now it`s hard for the cantonese to understand.they pc the hillbilly out of us.
-
Taxes are not punishment, they are revenue.
sirs assumes that they are punishment. Maybe for marrying the wealthy Mrs sirs, who knows what he feels so guilty about.
-
And Xo assumes wrong, once again. Imagine that :o Taxes are a necessary function to Government doing its job. The issue then what the proper size and role of Government, keeping in mind that the bigger it becomes, the more taxes necessary to feed it.
ADDING higher taxes to those that already pay the highest taxes is a coward's way of trying to play the class warfare card, and is defacto punishing those for their success. And as everyone can note, drives buinesses out of your state, along with all the jobs and tax revenunes connected to them. to states with a lesser tax and regulation burden
-
ADDING higher taxes to those that already pay the highest taxes is a coward's way of trying to play the class warfare card, and is defacto punishing those for their success. And as everyone can note, drives buinesses out of your state, along with all the jobs and tax revenunes connected to them. to states with a lesser tax and regulation burden
Are you reverting back to arguing state level taxation or are we still discussing federal taxation?
-
It is typical sirs, it really matters not.
Capitalism rewards people very unevenly. Those who benefit the most, should pay the most. It is not punishment, it is like hotels charging more in the Summer when the weather is more agreeable. sirs dementedly thinks it is "punishment", but this is not true. sirs is simply nuts.
-
ADDING higher taxes to those that already pay the highest taxes is a coward's way of trying to play the class warfare card, and is defacto punishing those for their success. And as everyone can note, drives buinesses out of your state, along with all the jobs and tax revenunes connected to them. to states with a lesser tax and regulation burden
Are you reverting back to arguing state level taxation or are we still discussing federal taxation?
Typical Xo, wrong, as it matters at every level, local, state, and Federal. To answer Bt's question however, begs the question, how am I reverting to anything? The current detrimental level of taxation and regulations being imposed on CA is a microcosm of what DC Democrats have been pushing Federally.
The advantage that DC has is by globally (meaning across the country) applying their taxation and regulation bonanaza, is that businesses and people have no place to move to. But the foundation of the problem remains, at all levels, trying to impose even higher taxes on those who already are shouldering far more of the burden in running this country, than can't even remotely be considered fair
-
So you are conflating the to levels of government and their philosophies re: taxation. OK.
-
Not at all, since I just referenced how they are seperate. But by all means, continue
-
Not at all, since I just referenced how they are seperate. But by all means, continue
Yes, you did, after the fact. Just trying to ascertain your state of mind at the time of the post.
-
Local taxation is generally better , your money gets spent closer to home and the benefit is much more visible , practicly none of it gets sent overseas.
I do consider high tax rates to be punishment , it is the very point of sin taxes and the practical effect of confiscatory rates of taxes.
I have been been working a lot of overtime, to the point that it seems less rewarding to work any more and somewhat pointless.
-
Just trying to ascertain your state of mind at the time of the post.
Not sure what "state of mind" has to do with anything. Nothing nefarious or misleading here, if that was indeed your effort to imply
-
You have answered the question to my satisfaction. Thank you.