It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Flatfish
Originally posted by LevelHeaded
I have a silly idea...
Why doesn't Congress leave the tax rates alone and live within their means by balancing the budget. Make a 10 year commitment to this and show the business world that the gov't will quit screwing around with things for awhile. This would lead to to the economic stability the businesses are looking for.
As it stands now, businesses don't want to invest in capital equipment (upgrading manufacturing plants, etc...) or personnel because they don't know what going to happen next. Will they be able to use the capital they have to help their business grow or have to send it off to the gov't?
Develop some stability and you will see the markets grow and when the markets are growing, they are hiring.
I too have a silly idea...
Why don't we tell all the hungry people in America and around the world that what they are experiencing is not a food shortage, but rather over-consumption of the food they do have.
I mean really, once they just learn to eat less, all their problems will be solved.
I too have a silly idea...
But do you think raising taxes is going to fix that or make it even worse?
are you ok with the company you work for having a 50k decrease in revenue next year?
Is a company making less money ever good for its employees?
Are you seriously arguing with me that a company getting taxed harder during a recession is a good thing.
Or is it more that your just jealous and want people that make a lot of money punished for making that money?
Originally posted by LevelHeaded
reply to post by Flatfish
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get across. Businesses do not like turmoil. They want a stable market. If Congress could make a commitment to leaving things alone for some time and allow the economy to stabilize, then businesses would be more inclined to spend capital to improve the business.
How the budget gets balanced is a different aspect from the stability issue. We have both a revenue and spending problem. I am not against tax reform resulting in increased revenues for the gov't. I am also not opposed to cutting the spending. Both need to be done. I am sure there are multiple ways to accomplish both without resorting to the politics as usual and showing the world how dysfunctional our elected leaders can be.
Basically, quit playing politics with the economy. Fix the tax code to increase revenues without waiting until the last minute. Cut gov't spending to close the income to spending gap. Leave it alone for 10 years and let the economy stabilize.
Originally posted by LevelHeaded
Go ahead and continue to point the finger at one side all you want. That is not solving the problem, it is playing into their hand and dividing the nation.
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
I thought tax cuts were bad?
Shouldn't the middle class have to pay their ``fair share`` too?
Originally posted by jjkenobi
There aren't any jobs being created right now because A) uncertainty about the economy and B) uncertainty about Obamacare.
Until Obama is out of office there won't be much confidence in the economy. Unfortunately thanks to the Supreme Court fudging a ruling the worries about Obamacare will continue on indefinitely. Nobody knows that is actually in the plan and what it will actually affect. Tax breaks won't make much of a difference since it won't affect either of those.
Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by TheTardis
But do you think raising taxes is going to fix that or make it even worse?
It will increase revenue. Revenue that can be used to address our debt that also plays a vital role in this crappy economy. There is a reason Moody downgraded us. there is a reason that there is uncertainty on whether the US can meet its obligations. The tax break is not creating jobs.
are you ok with the company you work for having a 50k decrease in revenue next year?
Revenue is based on demand for a product. If the demand isn't there, revenue decreases regardless of tax break.
Is a company making less money ever good for its employees?
No it is not. But what part of companies don't care about employees don't you get. If companies cared about employees, CEO's would share their wealth with their employees. Companies wouldn't be taking their jobs overseas. Everybody would have good benefits. The bottom line is profit, not taking care of employees. Don't believe me go ask people in the unemployment line.
Are you seriously arguing with me that a company getting taxed harder during a recession is a good thing.
I'm arguing that a tax break, good economy or bad economy, doesn't guarantee a job.
Or is it more that your just jealous and want people that make a lot of money punished for making that money?
No No jealousy. The whole tax thing needs to be reexamined. But until then we have to deal with what is in front of us now.
Originally posted by TheTardis
reply to post by Eurisko2012
Absolutely right. This is about standing up there and spouting off about republicans trying to give the rich a break. The rich pay in plenty. Think of it as stated above. 80mil can run the government for 8 days. That doesnt mean much. But 80mil spread out over small and medium businesses can make make a difference.
Originally posted by TheTardis
reply to post by Eurisko2012
Absolutely right. This is about standing up there and spouting off about republicans trying to give the rich a break. The rich pay in plenty. Think of it as stated above. 80mil can run the government for 8 days. That doesnt mean much. But 80mil spread out over small and medium businesses can make make a difference.
[hide]Table of historical income tax rates
not adjusted for inflation (1913–2010)
Year $10,001 $20,001 $60,001 $100,001 $250,001
1913 1% 2% 3% 5% 6%
1914 1% 2% 3% 5% 6%
1916 2% 3% 5% 7% 10%
1918 16% 21% 41% 64% 72%
1920 12% 17% 37% 60% 68%
1922 10% 16% 36% 56% 58%
1924 7% 11% 27% 43% 44%
1926 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1928 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1930 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1932 10% 16% 36% 56% 58%
1934 11% 19% 37% 56% 58%
1936 11% 19% 39% 62% 68%
1938 11% 19% 39% 62% 68%
1940 14% 28% 51% 62% 68%
1942 38% 55% 75% 85% 88%
1944 41% 59% 81% 92% 94%
1946 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1948 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1950 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1952 42% 62% 80% 90% 92%
1954 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1956 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1958 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1960 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1962 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1964 23% 34% 56% 66% 76%
1966–76 22% 32% 53% 62% 70%
1980 18% 24% 54% 59% 70%
1982 16% 22% 49% 50% 50%
1984 14% 18% 42% 45% 50%
1986 14% 18% 38% 45% 50%
1988 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%
1990 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%
1992 15% 15% 28% 28% 31%
1994 15% 15% 28% 31% 39.6%
1996 15% 15% 28% 31% 36%
1998 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%
2000 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%
2002 10% 15% 27% 27% 35%
2004 10% 15% 25% 25% 33%
2006 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
2008 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
2010 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Flatfish
Interesting graph and table.
Is there anything about how much any "higher" rates would have added to Federal revenues ?
We need to compare the amounts of money actually collected to the amounts that would have been collected.
(say for the last 10 or 15 years)
The "impact" may not be as substantial as some would hope.
And how would higher rates affect spending ?
Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Flatfish
Interesting graph and table.
Is there anything about how much any "higher" rates would have added to Federal revenues ?
We need to compare the amounts of money actually collected to the amounts that would have been collected.
(say for the last 10 or 15 years)
The "impact" may not be as substantial as some would hope.
And how would higher rates affect spending ?