View Full Version : Congressman Paul Ryan Budget Proposal
Gutshot John
04-06-11, 07:43
I'm surprised this isn't getting more discussion.
In one of the ballsiest proposals to come out of DC in my lifetime, Ryan just established his bona fides as a serious fiscal conservative.
Tackling entitlement spending that would cut $4.4 Trillion in the debt over ten years, Ryan is already under attack by the usual suspects who accuse him of wanting to throw grandma from the train.
Belmont31R
04-06-11, 07:45
Im still reading it.
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-06-11, 07:45
I'm surprised this isn't getting more discussion.
In one of the ballsiest proposals to come out of DC in my lifetime, Ryan just established his bona fides as a serious fiscal conservative.
Tackling entitlement spending that would cut $4.4 Trillion in the debt over ten years, Ryan is already under attack by the usual suspects who accuse him of wanting to throw grandma from the train.
If we cut Amtrack too, Grandma will be safe....
Haven't heard many details either, almost like the MSM thinks its DOA. Some people where starting to think that Ryan was going soft. I guess not.
montanadave
04-06-11, 09:17
While I do not support everything contained within Ryan's proposal, I commend him for having the balls to put it out there and suffer the inevitable demagoguery from the political opposition. But we can't achieve a balanced budget AND significantly reduce the federal deficit through spending cuts alone. They must be coupled with revenue enhancement. Yeah, that's right. Higher taxes.
Now let the President and the Democratic congressional leadership step up to the plate. Unfortunately, I fear they may choose to use Ryan's proposal and the recalcitrance of the House Tea Party Caucus to position themselves for the 2012 elections.
Personally, I'd like to see both sides swallow some bitter medicine and embrace the substance of Simpson-Bowles.
Gutshot John
04-06-11, 09:23
But we can't achieve a balanced budget AND significantly reduce the federal deficit through spending cuts alone. They must be coupled with revenue enhancement. Yeah, that's right. Higher taxes.
First that's objectively untrue. Spending is what is driving the deficit, no one disputes this, if you spend more than you take in than you increase the deficit. Obama has already doubled spending over and above W. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans at this point is that the former wants to make up the difference by increasing taxes, which would mean further economic shortfalls. If you increase taxes you lower incentives for investment and economic growth. Spending is what must be addressed.
Second if you had actually read his budget you would see that he tackles the tax issue head on. He ends corporate welfare and most tax subsidies, while lowering the overall corporate tax rate. This increases revenue even as it increases incentives for businesses to stay here and employ American workers, and improves the investment outlook both of whom in turn pay income taxes which increases revenue.
The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world about 35% compared to the EU which is about 25%. This has dramatic economic effects on employment and revenue.
Democrats (outside of the left-wing) and Republicans both agree that corporate tax rates must be lowered to improve global competitiveness.
Coupled with tax code reform and the closing of loopholes that employ armies of tax attorneys and you can indeed increase revenue while lowering taxes. Increasing investment and employment.
There was an excellent op-ed by David Brooks in yesterday's Times, check it out.
Last night on the news they said that Congress is spending 3x more than they are taking in. My household wouldn't last long doing that. Drastic measures are called for.
Chop it!
http://www.tacomaworld.com/gallery/data/500/Slap_Chop.jpeg (http://www.tacomaworld.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/149125/cat/500)
. But we can't achieve a balanced budget AND significantly reduce the federal deficit through spending cuts alone. They must be coupled with revenue enhancement. Yeah, that's right. Higher taxes.
**** that.
Taxes are way too high. Regulations is way too great.
Cut the fed budget by 80%. People who need the "programs" can piss off.
Taxes are way too high. Regulations is way too great.
Cut the fed budget by 80%. People who need the "programs" can piss off.
Exactly
We watched a little of it on youtube. I really like this guy and appreciate that SOMEONE is trying to do something.
As a business owner, we have some of the HIGHEST taxes in the world. We also have so many loop holes in the tax code that LARGE companies (that have tax attorneys on staff) can move things around well enough to pay little taxes.
The smaller or medium companies do not have this ability and get stuck with the bill. A more "flat tax" type program for companies would be much better I think AND would increase revenue to the Govt while helping the smaller companies grow.
C4
montanadave
04-06-11, 10:44
**** that.
Taxes are way too high. Regulations is way too great.
Cut the fed budget by 80%. People who need the "programs" can piss off.
A reasoned and articulate response, as always.
While I do not support everything contained within Ryan's proposal, I commend him for having the balls to put it out there and suffer the inevitable demagoguery from the political opposition. But we can't achieve a balanced budget AND significantly reduce the federal deficit through spending cuts alone. They must be coupled with revenue enhancement. Yeah, that's right. Higher taxes.
This is wrong. No higher taxes are needed. You can achieve a balanced budget through cuts alone. In fact, you have to. Deficits by definition come through spending more than you have. If you manage to take in more (tax hike or due to improved economy) THEN you can spend more.
But the country does not need tax hikes. The country must learn to do with less government.
montanadave
04-06-11, 11:13
First that's objectively untrue. Spending is what is driving the deficit, no one disputes this, if you spend more than you take in than you increase the deficit. Obama has already doubled spending over and above W. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans at this point is that the former wants to make up the difference by increasing taxes, which would mean further economic shortfalls. If you increase taxes you lower incentives for investment and economic growth. Spending is what must be addressed.
Second if you had actually read his budget you would see that he tackles the tax issue head on. He ends corporate welfare and most tax subsidies, while lowering the overall corporate tax rate. This increases revenue even as it increases incentives for businesses to stay here and employ American workers, and improves the investment outlook both of whom in turn pay income taxes which increases revenue.
While that is frequently touted as "conventional wisdom," the economic data is less than conclusive. Here's only one of many articles which challenges the premise that lower marginal tax rates are a boon for the economy:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1701
As noted, the periods of most dynamic economic growth in this country have occurred when top marginal tax rates were significantly higher than they are today.
As for corporate taxes, Republicans (hell, Congress in general) always talks about lowering rates and closing corporate loopholes but it seems all we ever get are lower rates, more loopholes, and diminished revenue.
As for Brooks' column, in many ways it mirrors my earlier comments. Our politicians need to take a break from their seemingly constant reelection campaigning and actually have a serious "come to Jesus" conversation about getting our fiscal house in order. I welcome the debate.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-06-11, 11:18
A reasoned and articulate response, as always.
When GE pays no taxes, I think his response is perfectly reasonable.
It used to be that we payed less in taxes and got less from govt. Now it is that we pay a lot in taxes and still get crappy services.
We have 49% paying no income tax, and the mentality that we should get more out of the govt than we put in. Ever got o dinner with abog group of people and when the bill comes and everyone throws in, you are always like 20% short (never mind the tip). People always overestimate how much they get and underestimate how much they need to throw in. Add in the fact that the federal govt is so frickin' inefficient and very few people pay their fair share (when you look at revenues <<< sevices + debt).
Liberals always talk about tax rates, because they want to punish wealth. They really don't care about getting more or less tax dollars, they want to punish those who work hard and have made it big. If you look at how much tax is actually paid you get a much different picture. I don't pay taxes in percent, I pay in dollars. Until the Right starts talking about dollars and stops talking about percent, they are going to get their heads handed to them about taxes.
If we raise taxes, this is all over- unless we tax the poor. If we just put the burden on the 'rich', which always ends up looking pretty middle class to me, Big Government people are just going to go back to that trough everytime they want to spend more. They'll just spend more and expect the working people to bail them out.
While that is frequently touted as "conventional wisdom," the economic data is less than conclusive. Here's only one of many articles which challenges the premise that lower marginal tax rates are a boon for the economy:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1701
As noted, the periods of most dynamic economic growth in this country have occurred when top marginal tax rates were significantly higher than they are today.
There is a difference between marginal tax rate (tax rate of the last dollar) and overall rate a person pays.
Additionally, there are so many other variables in economic performance that to say it goes back to tax rate is not supportable.
Most of the people who want to make this claim also start at WW2. They do not look at the much larger growth periods before WW2 that had low tax rates.
Also, because the definition of GDP (which is now used instead of GNP) includes government spending as growth, the numbers are skewed. You steal a large percentage of money out of the private market, inhibiting growth, and then call it growth because some of the money is put back into the economy.
Lastly, historically, practically every time Congress raised taxes, the money, if new revenues came in, went to new spending, not to reduce deficit or debt. I cannot find the article now but a few months ago someone in the MSM had a piece on this with a nice set of data to prove it. The article may be linked in the TOP ARTICLES thread or another political thread here. Google is also your friend if you want to wade through those results.
The fact is that no new taxes will solve the deficit problem. That will only be achieved through spending cuts.
As for corporate taxes, Republicans (hell, Congress in general) always talks about lowering rates and closing corporate loopholes but it seems all we ever get are lower rates, more loopholes, and diminished revenue.
As for Brooks' column, in many ways it mirrors my earlier comments. Our politicians need to take a break from their seemingly constant reelection campaigning and actually have a serious "come to Jesus" conversation about getting our fiscal house in order. I welcome the debate.
When GE pays no taxes, I think his response is perfectly reasonable.
Actually I read an article today that put this in perfect perspective. GE is a financial company today. A large percentage of their revenues come through financial services and if you look at the last few years, they and other financial companies posted large losses in the economic downturn. That affects future tax obligations as taxes are only on profits and profits are offset by losses.
It used to be that we payed less in taxes and got less from govt. Now it is that we pay a lot in taxes and still get crappy services.
We have 49% paying no income tax, and the mentality that we should get more out of the govt than we put in. Ever got o dinner with abog group of people and when the bill comes and everyone throws in, you are always like 20% short (never mind the tip). People always overestimate how much they get and underestimate how much they need to throw in. Add in the fact that the federal govt is so frickin' inefficient and very few people pay their fair share (when you look at revenues <<< sevices + debt).
Liberals always talk about tax rates, because they want to punish wealth. They really don't care about getting more or less tax dollars, they want to punish those who work hard and have made it big. If you look at how much tax is actually paid you get a much different picture. I don't pay taxes in percent, I pay in dollars. Until the Right starts talking about dollars and stops talking about percent, they are going to get their heads handed to them about taxes.
If we raise taxes, this is all over- unless we tax the poor. If we just put the burden on the 'rich', which always ends up looking pretty middle class to me, Big Government people are just going to go back to that trough everytime they want to spend more. They'll just spend more and expect the working people to bail them out.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-06-11, 11:35
While that is frequently touted as "conventional wisdom," the economic data is less than conclusive. Here's only one of many articles which challenges the premise that lower marginal tax rates are a boon for the economy:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1701
As noted, the periods of most dynamic economic growth in this country have occurred when top marginal tax rates were significantly higher than they are today.
Work. A reduction in marginal tax rates may encourage work by allowing workers to retain more of the earnings from their last hour of work. But economic theory suggests that such a reduction also may discourage work, by increasing the after-tax income of workers and therefore potentially inducing them to reduce their work effort (since they can achieve the same amount of after-tax income with less work effort). This countervailing force may be one explanation for why studies have generally found only a quite modest effect on work from reducing marginal tax rates. Numerous economic studies have found that lower tax rates do little to encourage work effort among working-aged males — who already are generally working full time — but do provide some additional incentives for women to enter the labor force or men to delay partial or full retirement.(8)
That is a sexist comment that would get a Republican fired for making it. PRIMARY wage earners may not change too much in THE SHORT TERM, but SECONDARY wage earners can act more quickly.
My wife is a physician and our primary wage earner. Even though I make more than the average bear, we constantly look at how much I actually bring home when we tack my income on top of hers. I can tell you that top marginal tax rates go much higher, I might as well stay home. Hey, I'm all for a top 60-70% margnal tax rate so I can stop working my ass off travelling all over the place and chase some of the nice MILFs that live in my 'hood ;) .
The report by Orzag, who isn't even an economist, and a bunch of left neo-communists doesn't change human nature. You reduce the reward for something, you reduce that activity.
The liberals say we should tax Cigs, alcohol and now foods at a higher rate to reduce their use, but when it comes to work- they think taxes won't have any effect? DUH???
Go ahead, raise taxes. We'll John Galt your asses so fast that you'll be Ivory Coasting it. Liberals treat the working people of America like the Giving Tree. Let me assure you, we'll leave a branch to hang you from.
Not that I'm that worked up about it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-06-11, 11:42
Actually I read an article today that put this in perfect perspective. GE is a financial company today. A large percentage of their revenues come through financial services and if you look at the last few years, they and other financial companies posted large losses in the economic downturn. That affects future tax obligations as taxes are only on profits and profits are offset by losses.
Don't get me started on those financial assholes.
GE still makes plenty of things, including White House advisors, useless "Green Week" TV propoganda and about half the crap in most houses.
Don't get me started on those financial assholes.
GE still makes plenty of things, including White House advisors, useless "Green Week" TV propoganda and about half the crap in most houses.
That's not the point. GE may make a lot, but they also lose/lost a lot. Just because they own a multi-billion dollar industry (or two) doesn't mean they owe the government money or that they're evil, even though that's what the progressives would have you believe. They're playing by the rules as much as we are and they shouldn't be ridiculed for doing so.
And even if they were making a huge profit, I'm a firm believer in gaming the tax system. Why? Because it brings out the flaws in the system which specifically penalize those who make a lot of money. Politicians increase taxes on corporations yet create loopholes geared towards those they favor... and we're mad because the big companies use them? Newsflash: if they don't like people using loopholes, then don't make them in the first place. Don't get mad at the companies - get mad at the Congress that passed those laws to begin with.
We need a single flat tax, for all individuals and all corporations. That would increase tax revenue, increase money taken home by workers, and be a heck of a lot simpler for all of us.
Don't get me started on those financial assholes.
I am not supporting their financial business strategies and tactics. Just pointing out that if one division makes money and the other loses money, they get to offset the division making money with the division losing money. And they can roll it to forward years so that they get to use all their loss. If they lose $10B in one year, then they can offset $10B worth of profits in the future. That is only fair.
The other thing is that if the money is earned outside the US why should the US get to tax it? A lot of their money is made outside the US financing things like jets, wind turbines, etc in other countries.
GE still makes plenty of things, including White House advisors, useless "Green Week" TV propoganda and about half the crap in most houses.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-06-11, 12:11
I've taken accounting and finance classes, I understand the system. I just think that something went wacky when GE went from the guys who made the toaster that the bank gives away, to being the bank too. I'm not against big, not really for it either, but to bring this back to Rep. Ryan, while I'm sure that there were some straightforward losses involved in GE Cap I read that GE has something like 5,000 tax attorneys on the payroll. I'd rather we had a simplier tax systems and they had 5,000 more engineers.
Ryan's "radical" budget would only reduce government spending to 20% of GDP by 2015. Obama wants to cut it to 23%. It is currently at 25%. In other words, there's only a 3 percentage point difference between Ryan's proposal and that of wild spending Democrats.
http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/
But why did the Congressman vote to bail out the auto industry, to pass the Medicare package to the tune of $400 billion, and to nationalize education via No Child Left Behind?
Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid.
According to Michelle Malkin in 2009, “[Paul Ryan] gave one of the most hysterical speeches in the rush to pass TARP last fall; voted for the auto bailout; and voted with the Barney Frank-Nancy Pelosi AIG bonus-bashing stampede. Milwaukee blogger Nick Schweitzer wrote: ‘He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don’t see one bit of regret for what he did previously. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let him get away with it’.”
Congressman Ryan: if you don’t like debt, stop voting for debt.
http://wi.rlc.org/2010/08/paul-ryans-record/
Maybe he had a come-to-Jesus moment.
Past votes are not important any more now that he had laid down the gauntlet. What is important are his future votes.
Why the right try to crucify their own is beyond me when we have a substantial proposal that would move us in the right direction.
Do I personally think it is enough? No, but it is probably a lot more doable than what I would like to see happen.
Belmont31R
04-06-11, 12:37
While that is frequently touted as "conventional wisdom," the economic data is less than conclusive. Here's only one of many articles which challenges the premise that lower marginal tax rates are a boon for the economy:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1701
As noted, the periods of most dynamic economic growth in this country have occurred when top marginal tax rates were significantly higher than they are today.
As for corporate taxes, Republicans (hell, Congress in general) always talks about lowering rates and closing corporate loopholes but it seems all we ever get are lower rates, more loopholes, and diminished revenue.
As for Brooks' column, in many ways it mirrors my earlier comments. Our politicians need to take a break from their seemingly constant reelection campaigning and actually have a serious "come to Jesus" conversation about getting our fiscal house in order. I welcome the debate.
I get sick of people posting about old tax rates. Those old top tax rates effected FAR LESS people than the top rate today, and there were many more loopholes. No one paid close to the old top tax rates. When Reagan lowered the tax rate he also took many of those loopholes out. That part is conveniently never mentioned in the articles you guys keep posting.
Maybe he had a come-to-Jesus moment.
Past votes are not important any more now that he had laid down the gauntlet. What is important are his future votes.
I think his past votes are important. He's part of the reason we have this debt problem and now he should just be absolved of his past sins cause he proposes something different than what he's voted for? Not in my eyes and his proposal is nothing earth shattering. It's based on a 10 year plan and isn't that much different than Obama's.
Do I personally think it is enough? No, but it is probably a lot more doable than what I would like to see happen.
Rand Paul's proposal is much more in line with what we need to elminate our nation's debt problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e0vDNmE_M7E#at=86
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
As the top marginal rate has decreased, the amount of taxes paid by the top income earners has increased. Clinton's change to raise the top marginal rate lead to a decrease in taxes paid by the top.
I think his past votes are important. He's part of the reason we have this debt problem and now he should just be absolved of his past sins cause he proposes something different than what he's voted for? Not in my eyes and his proposal is nothing earth shattering. It's based on a 10 year plan and isn't that much different than Obama's.
I did not say he should be absolved for past sins. I meant to say that we should not withhold support for his plan now due to his past sins. We should not crucify him or his plan based on his past sins. That makes no sense. He needs our support now and withholding that support because of his past actions is stupid.
Rand Paul's proposal is much more in line with what we need to elminate our nation's debt problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e0vDNmE_M7E#at=86
Here's a copy of Rand Paul's budget if you'd like to read it. http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf
Gutshot John
04-06-11, 13:11
I did not say he should be absolved for past sins. I meant to say that we should not withhold support for his plan now due to his past sins. We should not crucify him or his plan based on his past sins. That makes no sense. He needs our support now and withholding that support because of his past actions is stupid.
Indeed, if we were to exclude those that voted for any number of measures that were ostensibly in response to an economic crisis/meltdown we would not only have no ideas, we would have no one to vote for them. This is the boldest proposal put forward by any member on either side, and if we do nothing to support it, it will not only fail, but business as usual will continue. My belief however is that this proposal will be part of the 2012 platform and any serious GOP contender is going to have to endorse it.
That said, TARP actually brought in more revenue than it cost factor in the economic losses that would have probably resulted from doing nothing, than it doesn't seem like a total loss. Was it flawed and poorly executed? Did it create the concept of "too big to fail"? Absolutely but from a fiscal perspective it didn't make the situation worse and everything is 20/20 in hindsight.
Did Ryan vote for Obamacare? He did not and his take on entitlement and tax reform is a breath of fresh air.
Rand Paul's proposal is going nowhere, mostly because he's a Senator and spending bills start in the House so he can safely put forward anything he wants knowing that it will never see the light of day.
Here's a copy of Rand Paul's budget if you'd like to read it. http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf
I will look at it thanks. And I will probably be able to support it (if he can find someone in the House to introduce it. Pops?)
Supporting Ryan does not mean you cannot support Paul, and vice versa.
Supporting Ryan does not mean you cannot support Paul, and vice versa.
Absolutely. Thanks for the civil discourse. It's nice to see a political thread not turn to shit in the first 2 pages.
This is the boldest proposal put forward by any member on either side, and if we do nothing to support it, it will not only fail, but business as usual will continue.
It's definitely a step in the right direction.
Rand Paul's proposal is going nowhere, mostly because he's a Senator and spending bills start in the House so he can safely put forward anything he wants knowing that it will never see the light of day.
And that's a shame. His proposal would actually make a huge difference.
Here's a couple of charts I found @ Cato. I'll look for more to better illustrate some of the differences.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/9193/201104blogedwards51.jpg
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2548/paulobamabudget1.jpg
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/4601/paulobamabudget2.jpg
Magic_Salad0892
04-06-11, 14:58
Wow. On those Rand Paul numbers. That's awesome...
Or at least it would be if it saw the light of day.
**** HIGHER TAXES!!!!
Anybody who thinks higher taxes are the way to "fix" things, just give more of your own money, don't advocate stealing more from my family!
Well, I give Ryan props and the best of luck to him.
Anyone know if his budget does away with the corn ethanol subsidy?
For my money, we need a phase shift in tax policy. Right now we are in a burning building and fighting over what color to paint the kitchen.
I would like to see our tax forms reduced to a post card. Do away with every other tax law and deduction. Simply do this:
10% personal income tax, with a personal deduction of $20k per individual in the family.
15% corporate tax.
No estate tax
And a 20% tariff on ALL foreign goods and service.
And, for good measure, institute a national program to transition the US to biodiesel.
Ryan is already under attack by the usual suspects who accuse him of wanting to throw grandma from the train.
They apparently didn't read the part about the elimination of Medicare includes subsidizing private health insurance in place of the Medicare system. It's ****ing genius if you ask me. Just compare the fraud side by side, Medicare vs the private sector. Medicare is a ****ing snail when it comes to covering new and up and coming procedures and medications. The shingles vaccine is one example.
we can't achieve a balanced budget AND significantly reduce the federal deficit through spending cuts alone. They must be coupled with revenue enhancement. Yeah, that's right. Higher taxes.
While this is not true, I want to address the fact that we just need to do away with our current tax structure. The Fair Tax is the most researched piece of legislation and would solve many issues. Oh, and to the original topic, I like his plan over all but then I have only the basics and none of the details
There is a difference between marginal tax rate (tax rate of the last dollar) and overall rate a person pays.
Additionally, there are so many other variables in economic performance that to say it goes back to tax rate is not supportable.
Most of the people who want to make this claim also start at WW2. They do not look at the much larger growth periods before WW2 that had low tax rates.
Also, because the definition of GDP (which is now used instead of GNP) includes government spending as growth, the numbers are skewed. You steal a large percentage of money out of the private market, inhibiting growth, and then call it growth because some of the money is put back into the economy.
Lastly, historically, practically every time Congress raised taxes, the money, if new revenues came in, went to new spending, not to reduce deficit or debt. I cannot find the article now but a few months ago someone in the MSM had a piece on this with a nice set of data to prove it. The article may be linked in the TOP ARTICLES thread or another political thread here. Google is also your friend if you want to wade through those results.
The fact is that no new taxes will solve the deficit problem. That will only be achieved through spending cuts.Well said
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.