So I guess Mitt Romney really shoulda won

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

This is almost incoherent. I said use the RATES of 1993. The economic reality of 1993 was better than the economic reality of today. The Deficit situation was better then as well... and part of this recovery in 1993 was due to the higher tax rates. If we went to 1993 and kept many of the deductions, which is EXACTLY what I'm saying, so save the '800%' argument, that would be a more rational and equitable code.

Even just with rates, you are talking about a 50% hike on the bottom bracket, vs a 13% hike on the top

Which after deductions would still amount to a much more significant effective hike on the folks you claim are stretched to their limits at 3x the legal poverty threshold

You talk about your savings rates as if they show ANY correlation or pattern to your argument.

A quick LOOK at the graph shows that the early 1980's had the highest savings rates... during a recession and higher inflation. The late 2000's had the lowest due to the housing bubble. What does this have to do with, not just your argument, but, ANYTHING

The point was to show our spending habits have been thrown in the bushes

You just proved my point

1980s we had a recession... people hunkered down, curbed their spending, deleveraged, saved more

We are in a recession now... consumer spending is still high... people are taking on more debt... and then claiming they can't afford higher taxes and that the rich need to pay "their fair share" :biggaplease:

The last time saving rates was this low was around 9/11 and after the dot com bust... that was the start of the decline. Before that savings rates rarely dipped below 5%, including several recessions, one of which was just as bad as what we're in now

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Depends on what your doing. My family is eating good off about 60k. We own a home two cars, and everybody is fed and clothed well.

fukk what y'all talking bout, if we can live comfortably off 60k then 400k is rich.

According to #BrokeWave your family has zero capacity to pay any kind of income tax

I dont know who to believe

 

[MeachTheMonster]

According to #BrokeWave your family has zero capacity to pay any kind of income tax

I dont know who to believe

I pay income tax. Not much but some. Looking at the amount they said I would pay if we went over the fiscal cliff, I really wasn't worried. It would cut into my savings, but no big deal.

This is how I know those making 400k or even 250k would be ok with a little higher taxes. No matter what income bracket you live in if you are spending your income to the point where a 3% loss can break you, you probably need to reassess your budget and priorities.

 

[Broke Wave]

Even just with rates, you are talking about a 50% hike on the bottom bracket, vs a 13% hike on the top

Which after deductions would still amount to a much more significant effective hike on the folks you claim are stretched to their limits at 3x the legal poverty threshold



The point was to show our spending habits have been thrown in the bushes

You just proved my point

1980s we had a recession... people hunkered down, curbed their spending, deleveraged, saved more

We are in a recession now... consumer spending is still high... people are taking on more debt... and then claiming they can't afford higher taxes and that the rich need to pay "their fair share" :biggaplease:

The last time saving rates was this low was around 9/11 and after the dot com bust... that was the start of the decline. Before that savings rates rarely dipped below 5%, including several recessions, one of which was just as bad as what we're in now

wrong again...

your correlation showed NOTHING... because savings rates in the 1980's at their very highest were about as high as they were in the 1960's and 50's save for 1 or 2 percentage points.

what you totally miss is the big picture, that spending rates have remained the same but wages have stagnated and declined when adjusted for inflation in the last 30 years, and credit requirements have loosened creating much higher consumer debt. its really that simple. this also created the bubble in corporate profits because people are spending a lot without having to be paid alot. consumer debt = corporate profit.

as far as your hyperbolic representation of my tax proposal, save that for the birds

Why don't you just run for Father in Chief and go around america on a tour telling people "hey guys, start spending less, tighten your belts, and guess what, you're going to pay federal taxes now, skin in the game!"

meanwhile 93% of the gains in the last 2 years go to the top 1% you can put your head in the sand but that's what the problem is.

I don't even know why I'm arguing economics with someone who said Mitt Romney would be better for the economy than Obama. Something so patently untrue. It's like you desire to be so different and "mature" being "right down the middle" on issues that have a wrong and right answer. You are the CNN of HL.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

wrong again...

your correlation showed NOTHING... because savings rates in the 1980's at their very highest were about as high as they were in the 1960's and 50's save for 1 or 2 percentage points.

what you totally miss is the big picture, that spending rates have remained the same but wages have stagnated and declined when adjusted for inflation in the last 30 years, and credit requirements have loosened creating much higher consumer debt. its really that simple. this also created the bubble in corporate profits because people are spending a lot without having to be paid alot. consumer debt = corporate profit.

Nobody is forcing consumers to take on the debt. Yes higher housing + healthcare + higher education costs are a part of it. But there is still an element of bad decision making in all those realms and generally with consumer spending. If you don't think people's spending habits have an effect on their saving rates

as far as your hyperbolic representation of my tax proposal, save that for the birds

I wish I was being hyperbolic, you seriously said a family making $50K cannot afford to pay any federal income taxes, and that a family 3x above the legal poverty threshold is poor

I cant even exaggerate that, that is more ridiculous than anything I could ever come up with

Why don't you just run for Father in Chief and go around america on a tour telling people "hey guys, start spending less, tighten your belts, and guess what, you're going to pay federal taxes now, skin in the game!"

If taxes went up people would have no choice but to buckle down

But I don't see the problem with spreading financial literacy and promoting financial prudence/responsibility. How would people living within their means hurt us in the long term???

meanwhile 93% of the gains in the last 2 years go to the top 1% you can put your head in the sand but that's what the problem is.

How would tax hikes solve that??? You would rather everyone have no gains than any part of the population get a disproportionate share? And note, I never said we didn't have an income distribution problem, but for the thousandth time can you explain how its causes (dwindling competitiveness and a voluntary shying away from STEM fields) will be addressed by raising taxes on the 1%???

I don't even know why I'm arguing economics with someone who said Mitt Romney would be better for the economy than Obama. Something so patently untrue. It's like you desire to be so different and "mature" being "right down the middle" on issues that have a wrong and right answer. You are the CNN of HL.

Theres a lot of shyt I dont like about Mitt, but when it comes to economics and fiscal policy hes demonstrated much higher aptitude than Obama

I still stand by that

Meach summed up one of my points beautifully though... you keep screaming the avg household in America is living in poverty... here's a counterpoint from the head of one of those households

No matter what income bracket you live in if you are spending your income to the point where a 3% loss can break you, you probably need to reassess your budget and priorities.

:biggaplease::biggaplease::biggaplease::biggaplease::biggaplease::biggaplease:

 

[Serious]

Bro, I'm just on my cell phone at the beach and popped into this thread and I had to put down my Corona for this. I'm sorry, but this is bad. Most of my friends' families since college and now in law school make a lot of money, I'm talking upper class to millionaire lawyers and shyt (whether they're liberal or conservative). Everyone who meets me just assumes I'm well off by affiliation. So I can say with confidence,

They would laugh in your face for what you just said and how you attempted to divide American society.


The median US income for a household is 50,000 dollars and 67k for dual earners. Your numbers are imaginary and arbitrary. There is not an economist or researcher walking around with any clout that puts the outer bounds of middle class anywhere far past 150k. Obviously like @NYC_Rebel and @Rekka_Pryde showed people who make more than that are by no means "wealthy", they are certainly comfortable and they have the luxury of being able to complain about their problems. Yes, those problems themselves are a luxury. The bottom line is, there is no one walking around that is going to sit here and seriously debate that people making 400k a year are middle class. You want to talk LA, we'll talk LA. IN BEL-AIR, the median income is only 203,000.

It has nothing to do with who is really causing problems, it's about who can afford to pay more in a progressive tax system. You're going to have to stop conflating the two points. *Goes to splash water on his baby cousin*

Yeah bro,disregard, didn't know my households' gross was that of the top 5%,

and have relatives in the 1%...

makes sense now...

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Nobody is forcing consumers to take on the debt. Yes higher housing + healthcare + higher education costs are a part of it. But there is still an element of bad decision making in all those realms and generally with consumer spending. If you don't think people's spending habits have an effect on their saving rates


I wish I was being hyperbolic, you seriously said a family making $50K cannot afford to pay any federal income taxes, and that a family 3x above the legal poverty threshold is poor

I cant even exaggerate that, that is more ridiculous than anything I could ever come up with


If taxes went up people would have no choice but to buckle down

But I don't see the problem with spreading financial literacy and promoting financial prudence/responsibility. How would people living within their means hurt us in the long term???


How would tax hikes solve that??? You would rather everyone have no gains than any part of the population get a disproportionate share? And note, I never said we didn't have an income distribution problem, but for the thousandth time can you explain how its causes (dwindling competitiveness and a voluntary shying away from STEM fields) will be addressed by raising taxes on the 1%???



Theres a lot of shyt I dont like about Mitt, but when it comes to economics and fiscal policy hes demonstrated much higher aptitude than Obama

I still stand by that

Meach summed up one of my points beautifully though... you keep screaming the avg household in America is living in poverty... here's a counterpoint from the head of one of those households



:biggaplease::biggaplease::biggaplease::biggaplease::biggaplease::biggaplease:

don't use me to get your point accross. I think both of you make compelling points. Most families should be able to pay some income tax. But when it comes to reducing the deficit, and repairing the economy the problem and solution lies with the rich. As broke said the only income growth this country has seen in a long time is with the rich. Middle class salaries haven't budged, yet costs have gone through the roof. The reason people can't save as much now is because more of their money is going to gas, milk, etc.

In a weak economy such as the one we have now raising taxes on the middle class would be detrimental to our recovery. Raising taxes on the rich can help the deficit with minimal effect on the economy. Seein how the rich are the only one who are making more money today than they were 20 years ago, it's only right that they give some of that prosperity back in hopes of strengthening the middle class.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Liek I said I agree that growth has been top heavy. Part of that is due to bad policy, part of that is due to the changing global economy, part of it is due to some other shyt. None of it is due to taxes. The folks who have seen the most gains over the last couple of decades have had the least tax relief and have shouldered most of the tax burden over that period. The only cogent argument for taxes on the rich is that they are in the best position to weather the "temporary" added expenses.

But Brokewave is already demonstrating the slippery slope of entitlement that will keep us in a perpetual deficit. He claims families 3x above the poverty threshold can't afford to pay federal taxes, which is why the govt introduced all the tax breaks they get. Even considering the weaker position the avg household is in this is false- but it makes even less sense when you consider when most of these deductions were introduced

And then other people are acknowledging we have a problem today, but keep qualifying the conditions we need to met before we can address them. We need growth at x% and UE under y%. But what if the growth is still top heavy? What about our aging population? What about all the bad govt policy driving up costs of the basics? People are talking about shyt with tunnel vision and making very goofy correlations between trends, and I think we need to take a more honest + holistic analytical approach.

 

[The_Sheff]

Liek I said I agree that growth has been top heavy. Part of that is due to bad policy, part of that is due to the changing global economy, part of it is due to some other shyt. None of it is due to taxes. The folks who have seen the most gains over the last couple of decades have had the least tax relief and have shouldered most of the tax burden over that period. The only cogent argument for taxes on the rich is that they are in the best position to weather the "temporary" added expenses.

But Brokewave is already demonstrating the slippery slope of entitlement that will keep us in a perpetual deficit. He claims families 3x above the poverty threshold can't afford to pay federal taxes, which is why the govt introduced all the tax breaks they get. Even considering the weaker position the avg household is in this is false- but it makes even less sense when you consider when most of these deductions were introduced

And then other people are acknowledging we have a problem today, but keep qualifying the conditions we need to met before we can address them. We need growth at x% and UE under y%. But what if the growth is still top heavy? What about our aging population? What about all the bad govt policy driving up costs of the basics? People are talking about shyt with tunnel vision and making very goofy correlations between trends, and I think we need to take a more honest + holistic analytical approach.

Thats the main issue. If middle class wages werent stagnant for the last 30 years we wouldnt be in nearly as bad a shape as we are now. Lets be real, there is only so much money the people at the top can spend before it just gets hoarded (which is whats taking place now). If more of that money was spread out to the rest of us we would be more than happy to spend it and keep the economy moving.

The people in charge are doing everything possible to offset those stagnant wages (tax cuts, cheaper chinese produced products, etc....) but eventually its gonna come to a head. The middle class needs more money! The real middle class, not this 400k middle class im reading about.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Thats the main issue. If middle class wages werent stagnant for the last 30 years we wouldnt be in nearly as bad a shape as we are now. Lets be real, there is only so much money the people at the top can spend before it just gets hoarded (which is whats taking place now). If more of that money was spread out to the rest of us we would be more than happy to spend it and keep the economy moving.

The people in charge are doing everything possible to offset those stagnant wages (tax cuts, cheaper chinese produced products, etc....) but eventually its gonna come to a head. The middle class needs more money! The real middle class, not this 400k middle class im reading about.

I think that is one of many important issues.... none of which will be solved by the course of action we are taking, or by the course of action folks like Brokewave are suggesting.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

There are some pretty fundamental reasons why its prob unreasonable to expect our economy to ever return to those conditions barring serious reinvestment into education and infrastructure... and even with those we would still have at least a few years of stagnation while things take effect

I'm not sure about returning to 3 or 4% unemployment any time soon, but GDP grew at 3.1% in the last quarter and only 1.3% before that. The recovery is too shaky right now to start raising middle class tax cuts and doing large spending cuts. We'd go right back in to a recession. That was kinda the point of avoiding the fiscal cliff.

And I haven't "manufactured" anything. We generate half of what we spend. We have a CC balance equal to our annual economic output. Half the population has a zero to negative federal income bill. The population is aging. Part of why we got to where we are is your kind of "yea we have long term problems but we have to deal with shyt right now" thinking. Our problems today were our long term problems 5, 10 years ago.

This is bullshyt. My kind of thinking is how we got here? No, we got here because of giving enormous tax cuts to the top 2% of income earners during a recovery period of normal economic growth while simultaneously putting Medicare part D and two wars on the credit card.

The debt "crisis" is manufactured in the sense that is there is this falsehood being presented that somehow it's concern A1. The crisis right now is people being out of work and the middle class being crushed by flat wages and rising costs. Our debt-GDP ratio is about 102% right now. The world buys our bonds. It's not like we're going to turn into Greece in a decade. It's just scaremongering bullshyt. And I'm not saying don't address it, I'm saying don't start making massive cuts yet unless you want to be like Europe.

What happens if the global economy recovers and people find other places to park their money, sending our interest rates up? Even if we are part of that growth our debt problem would easily exceed whatever additional revenue would be generated.

Now you sound like Ron Paul. People are not going to stop investing in the U.S. if we delay spending cuts by a few months or a year. We have double the gross domestic output of the 2nd place nation in the world. Nobody else issues dollars but the U.S. and we can keep producing them infinitely and they are the world's reserve currency. The demand for our currency inundates the whole world. That's why we haven't seen the inflation you'd expect despite the Fed expanding the money supply by the trillions.

Talk to some investors. None of them are worried about nations taking money out of the U.S. Only the pundits and politicians with agendas and the people listening to them.

And I don't think spending cuts are retarded. I think we can all agree that military spending needs to come down drastically. I think we can also agree that healthcare needs big reform. I don't think there is a logical argument against the idea that everyone needs to pay some level of federal income taxes. And like I demonstrated earlier there are a lot of places where Americans can save money but choose not to. So the idea that this is the best we can do and that it's pointless to talk about how to address the deficit is retarded. The deficit is largely the result of a lot of poor choices we made and are still making.

And all I'm saying is doing it now would put us back in a recession and I don't think that's a good idea. I'm fine some slight increases in middle class taxes and spending cuts (mostly in the military), but I think it should be tied to some indicators of growth and recovery, sort of like the Fed doing with interest rates and quantitative easing.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I think we can make big cuts to the military, and do healthcare reforms. Those would be good for about $500B in spending cuts if done right. Simplification of the tax code would free up money in the economy as well though I can't really put a hard # on that. And I am not suggesting huge tax hikes on the middle class. I am just saying people need to stop spewing this garbage that the rich need to "pay their fair share" when the middle class isn't paying anything. Its biting the hand that feeds you (literally) and displaying a gross lack of comprehension of what is going on

The drop in middle class taxes was well underway long before this recession too. But thats a whole other discussion. I just want the discussion on taxes to be based in reality.

 

[The_Sheff]

I think we can make big cuts to the military, and do healthcare reforms. Those would be good for about $500B in spending cuts if done right. Simplification of the tax code would free up money in the economy as well though I can't really put a hard # on that. And I am not suggesting huge tax hikes on the middle class. I am just saying people need to stop spewing this garbage that the rich need to "pay their fair share" when the middle class isn't paying anything. Its biting the hand that feeds you (literally) and displaying a gross lack of comprehension of what is going on

The drop in middle class taxes was well underway long before this recession too. But thats a whole other discussion. I just want the discussion on taxes to be based in reality.

Everyone with even an ounce of knowledge about our budget knows thats where the money is, but we also know nobody in Washington is going to cut a dime of military spending.

 

[CASHAPP]

Everyone with even an ounce of knowledge about our budget knows thats where the money is, but we also know nobody in Washington is going to cut a dime of military spending.

Man the second we stop the operation in Afghanistan(i know if we leave, troops still stay for protection,etc but i mean the end of fighting) the economy will definitely speed up.

I really hope Obama decides to return the troops one year early and make it the end of 2013 instead of the end of 2014.

I mean are we really going to stay there until 2014 to get Zawahiri?

 

[NZA]

quite frankly, i think we would be even better off if we had even higher progressive taxes. take the incentive out of the rich just stockpiling money...