| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'm not all that impressed with forecasts, weather or economic. This is just happy talk, not news. The only news that matters is what the deficit is at the end of the fiscal year. That's a fact. A fact is news. Someone's projection of what will happen is nothing more than a projection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Before we get carried away and think of Bush as slightly fiscally savvy, let's hear from another source.
WashPostEditorial
| Quote: |
Budget Boost
Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A24
THE LATEST DEFICIT news is good instead of the usual grim, which is certainly a welcome change. The Bush administration released revised deficit estimates yesterday projecting that the fiscal 2005 shortfall would be $333 billion -- nearly $100 billion less than it had anticipated in February and far below last year's record $412 billion deficit. That followed a similarly upbeat assessment from the Congressional Budget Office, which reported last week that it expects this year's deficit to be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."
The reason for this rosier scenario is an unanticipated surge in tax revenue, with receipts projected to rise a whopping 14 percent from last year's level. But it would be dangerous -- and wrong -- to take this news as evidence that President Bush's tax cuts were wise policy, that the tax cuts should be made permanent or that deficit worries can be safely ignored.
This year's healthy tax take follows three straight years -- the three years after the Bush tax cuts were first passed -- of falling tax receipts. Last year, tax revenue was at its lowest level as a share of the economy in 40-plus years. And even this year's receipts are far less than the administration had projected they would be in 2002. In short, the unexpected increase is good news only in comparison to the disappointing performance of the recent past. The notion that the tax cuts would somehow magically pay for themselves hasn't proved true; instead, taxes have come in far lower than was anticipated when the cuts were passed.
Moreover, there's every reason to think that much of this year's more bountiful tax take could be temporary. A big chunk of the increased revenue comes from the expiration of an investment tax break, a one-time bump-up. Similarly, last year's tax bill created a one-year tax break for multinational corporations' overseas profits; this is also a once-only boost and could reduce tax revenue next year.
The increase in individual income taxes doesn't reflect any big hike in taxes deducted from paychecks. Rather, it comes mostly from "non-withheld taxes" -- takes on income such as big bonuses or capital gains from the sale of stock and houses. This, too, could prove ephemeral. As Goldman-Sachs concluded in a recent analysis, "The fact is that both growth and stock market momentum have cooled in 2005. Thus the strength in non-withheld taxes is apt to fade as well."
CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin has wisely cautioned that the current improvement should be taken "with a grain of salt," adding, "There's simply no question if you take yourself to 2008, 2009 or 2010, that vision is the same today as it was two months ago." But the administration takes this year's good news and assumes that much of it will continue, with extra tax revenue averaging around $80 billion annually for the next five years. Combining that with optimistic assumptions about low interest rates, the administration foresees deficits falling to just over 1 percent of gross domestic product by 2008.
Perhaps that will happen. But if there is a lesson from the faulty forecasts and ephemeral surpluses of recent years, it is the danger of making that gamble. What's certain, meanwhile, are the fiscal pressures that will hit down the road, as the baby boomers begin to retire. This should be the time to be preparing for those costs, not piling on more debt. |
Don't make the cuts permanent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about this?
Add a big gas tax - up to three dollars a gallon
Giver lower income people a tax cut.
Add in a captial gains tax cut
Make medical insurance tax deductable
Keep tax cuts for middle income Americans
Raise taxes on the richest Americans from 33% to 35%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Keep tax cuts for middle income Americans
Raise taxes on the richest Americans from 33% to 35%.
|
Won't work.
Take $1 million from 5 people and you have a total of $5 million.
Take $1 from 200 million people and you have a total of $200 million.
I figured this out when Reagan did his big tax cut, at the time, the biggest in history. I gained $20 bucks a month while he was quadrupling the national debt. $20 isn't even enough for one date a month.
To make any difference, we need to repeal the tax cut, then raise them enough to pay for the war. That should have been done from the start, but Bush knew if he told the public it was going to cost $5 billion a month for the foreseeable future he wouldn't have had more than about 6 votes for re-election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why repeal all of the tax cuts? Why not instead hike gas taxes -way up?
Gas taxes could be a major revenue source for the US.
A three dollar a gallon tax would raise 300 billion a year in revenue.
That would make up for the shortfall in revenue.
Low income people would get a tax cut to help a little with the tax cut.
And another tax cut for people who buy health insurance.
And a capital gains tax cut to encourage investment.
High taxes mens less incentive for people to work and invest.
The compare the US and Europe why is the US economy more dynamic than that of the EU?
People don't have a right to cheap gas so they can enage in recrational driving whenever they want to.
In the US personal income taxes are too too high (except in the case of the very very rich ) and gas taxes are far too low.
I never supported Bush's tax cuts but I would have supported them if he had offered to make up the lost revenue with a gas tax.
High income taxes punish people for being successful.
High gas taxes reward people for living right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For me, the benefit of the gas tax would be that we could encourage investment in alternative energies earlier so that we would be ready later. It's not supposed to be a revenue tax, because strictly as such its a very poor one. Gas affects everything, so we have to be careful with high gas taxes. An effective gas tax might be an extra dollar per gallon. Still steep and hefty, but it will give us a good idea of what the future will bring. This would only be for at the pump services, if you made airlines adhere to this you'd ground them, and for maritime cargo you can't boost it either.
I don't disagree with any of the other tax policies, except I don't agree with making the tax cuts permanent with the middle class. Essentially, Bush's tax cuts are merely a brilliant political maneuver. While I credit Reagan with actually believing in his economics and doubling defense spending in order for readiness against the USSR as well as an attempt to break it, I believe Bush's tax cuts are purely political. It's the tie-breaker in a close election, because some people care only about little they have to pay the government. In addition, his tax cuts have the added advantage of being so extreme that they cannot be continued far beyond 2008 with all the additional burdens in expenditure for which the US will be accountable. Not to mention, with taxes this low, the argument will be about whether or not to retain the tax cuts and not about things like re-hauling the health care system and having the public sector take on some of the burden. Later on, the Democrats will have to raise taxes again, and that will be unpopular, and when it is, political advantage for the GOP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
How about this?
Add a big gas tax - up to three dollars a gallon
Giver lower income people a tax cut.
Add in a captial gains tax cut
Make medical insurance tax deductable
Keep tax cuts for middle income Americans
Raise taxes on the richest Americans from 33% to 35%. |
If you'd like your rightie compatriots to label you a commie in addition to your leftie compatriots labelling you a neocon with his head up his ass, start the lobbying! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I've never bought the argument that taxes lower the incintive to work. Greed is not reduced by taxes, but it is stimulated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I've never bought the argument that taxes lower the incintive to work. Greed is not reduced by taxes, but it is stimulated. |
If you read Weber you can see a pretty clear case that in the West it was work ethic, and not slightly increased proffitability, that drove people to work harder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If you read Weber you can see a pretty clear case that in the West it was work ethic, and not slightly increased proffitability, that drove people to work harder. |
Being a lazy lapsed protestant, I'm impressed with the general Korean tendency to work hard. The level of taxes doesn't affect that, I think. However, at the lower end of the economic scale, I do think low wages discourages people from working. That doesn't play well in conservative circles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Sunny Glendale, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm enjoying reading a bunch of expats talk about raising taxes they aren't paying.
If you are, my apologies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm enjoying reading a bunch of expats talk about raising taxes they aren't paying.
|
There is a certain irony inherent in that, isn't there? I noticed it too but was hoping others hadn't caught on. It's the principle, Dan. The principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
YU BUM SUK
| Quote: |
If you'd like your rightie compatriots to label you ... lobbying! |
If both the right and the left attack you then you are probably ok |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
