3 ms·

Seems like some very reasonable proposals that have the potential to make a huge impact. support long-term unemployed workers who create their own jobs by star

Seems like some very reasonable proposals that have the potential to make a huge impact. support long-term unemployed workers who create their own jobs by starting their own companies nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety new science labs and Internet-ready classrooms BusinessUSA within 90 days...one-stop online platform will provide access to information about the full range of government programs and services businesses need to compete globally I'm happy to pay my taxes, personally I don't think there is a much better use of my money than improving the lives of the people in this country, or any country for that matter (once my basic needs are met, of course). Putting people to work is just an awesome side effect of improving our infrastructure and schools. If there is wasteful spending in the government, identify it, and get rid of it. There's no need to maintain some religious faith against ever raising taxes for anybody though. I mean look at today's tax rates compared to the early 80s: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.pdf http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_histo... [PDF] It will be interesting to see if the Republicans are willing to compromise on increasing revenue, and the Democrats on entitlement programs, in order to meet the goal Obama has set for the deficit reductions, which is what will ultimately determine if The American Jobs Act will come to fruition.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
There's no need to maintain some religious faith against ever raising taxes for anybody though. I mean look at today's tax rates compared to the early 80s: Instead of focusing on one particular tax rate (marginal individual rates) and ignoring all the others, why not just look at tax revenues? They've been more or less flat (at 18.1% of GDP) for the past 50 years. http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-government-budget-overview-2011-1?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-government-budget-ove...
- gjm11 15y ago
  The people arguing that taxes on high earners should not be raised (and should perhaps even be lowered) are mostly not saying "The government's revenues are too high"; they are saying that those tax rates are too high -- that higher upper-band income tax rates are unjust, or will reduce the incentive to work harder, or something of the sort. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to this by pointing out that upper-band tax rates have been distinctly higher in the past, and that innovation and wealth creation have done just fine when they were. Incidentally, it seems pretty odd to me to say "more or less flat" and give a number as precise as 18.1% when the actual variations have been from 15% to over 20%. I wouldn't call that "more or less flat" (though I would agree there's no long-term trend, which is an entirely different matter) -- but, regardless of that, I suggest an experiment. Ask someone to plot a graph of something that's "more or less flat at 18.1%", a graph of something that's "more or less flat at 18%", or a graph of something that's "more or less flat, between 15% and 20%". I predict that the first will be much, much flatter than the actual revenue graph; the second will merely be much flatter; and the third might be about right (though probably still too flat; "varying between 15% and 20%" would most likely get you a better result). In other words, your choice of wording gives a very false impression of how the graph actually behaves.
  - TuaAmin13 15y ago
    "It seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to this by pointing out that upper-band tax rates have been distinctly higher in the past, and that innovation and wealth creation have done just fine when they were." In the olden days the top tax rates were incredibly high (90%), but you didn't actually pay that; you had a ton of deductions to lower you actual paid rate. Forgetting that argument for a second, was there an opportunity cost that doesn't exist today? With those periods of innovation and wealth creation, did they only happen because we were the "best" location at the time? As in, it didn't matter what the rates were because the US was the best place given the infrastructure you require. Now you can go to many places on the globe and get the same stuff done. Wouldn't that imply that the US has to become more competitive in order to promote growth, and part of that competitiveness (the variables we can manipulate) would be lowering marginal income taxes.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

There's no need to maintain some religious faith against ever raising taxes for anybody though. I mean look at today's tax rates compared to the early 80s: Instead of focusing on one particular tax rate (marginal individual rates) and ignoring all the others, why not just look at tax revenues? They've been more or less flat (at 18.1% of GDP) for the past 50 years. http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-government-budget-overview-2011-1?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/federal-government-budget-ove...

gjm11 15y ago
The people arguing that taxes on high earners should not be raised (and should perhaps even be lowered) are mostly not saying "The government's revenues are too high"; they are saying that those tax rates are too high -- that higher upper-band income tax rates are unjust, or will reduce the incentive to work harder, or something of the sort. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to this by pointing out that upper-band tax rates have been distinctly higher in the past, and that innovation and wealth creation have done just fine when they were. Incidentally, it seems pretty odd to me to say "more or less flat" and give a number as precise as 18.1% when the actual variations have been from 15% to over 20%. I wouldn't call that "more or less flat" (though I would agree there's no long-term trend, which is an entirely different matter) -- but, regardless of that, I suggest an experiment. Ask someone to plot a graph of something that's "more or less flat at 18.1%", a graph of something that's "more or less flat at 18%", or a graph of something that's "more or less flat, between 15% and 20%". I predict that the first will be much, much flatter than the actual revenue graph; the second will merely be much flatter; and the third might be about right (though probably still too flat; "varying between 15% and 20%" would most likely get you a better result). In other words, your choice of wording gives a very false impression of how the graph actually behaves.
- TuaAmin13 15y ago
  "It seems perfectly reasonable to me to respond to this by pointing out that upper-band tax rates have been distinctly higher in the past, and that innovation and wealth creation have done just fine when they were." In the olden days the top tax rates were incredibly high (90%), but you didn't actually pay that; you had a ton of deductions to lower you actual paid rate. Forgetting that argument for a second, was there an opportunity cost that doesn't exist today? With those periods of innovation and wealth creation, did they only happen because we were the "best" location at the time? As in, it didn't matter what the rates were because the US was the best place given the infrastructure you require. Now you can go to many places on the globe and get the same stuff done. Wouldn't that imply that the US has to become more competitive in order to promote growth, and part of that competitiveness (the variables we can manipulate) would be lowering marginal income taxes.