Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

US Budget 2029

USA Budget The future Future NASA

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#41
Prolite

Prolite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts

Tax cuts did NOT get us out of the recession in the early 1980's that Republicans so blindly believe. And you've made ranting statements in the past about my remarks but you don't back it up. Talk is cheap.


If I may ask, what did then? If you're going to ask someone to back up their statements, you might do well to back up your own.


"Each period of high unemployment was caused by the Federal Reserve, as it substantially increased interest rates to reduce high inflation; each time, once inflation fell and interest rates were lowered, unemployment slowly fell."

1) The FED made money more expensive to borrow. Inflation fell. And because money wasn't as overvalued (inflation), it then became less costly to borrow money.

2) Unemployment fell and there was more money being infused into the economy. There was more certainty. And because inflation fell, people's money had more VALUE. They could buy more with their money. And that is consumer spending. That's why unemployment insurance is the best way to stimulate the economy. The Gov't is giving money to people who need it the most.
I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#42
truthiness

truthiness

    The Squire of Gothos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo MI
So if I understand you correctly, the Fed is what has saved us from recessions in the past, but the Fed is tapped out at the moment, so the solution is to take on more debt to "bail out" the currently unemployed? Economics has never been a strong suit of mine, so forgive me a bit here... Sounds like a decent solution to me, from what I think I understand... certainly sounds better than further breaks for the already wealthy or more bailouts for Wall Street...
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one

#43
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts



Companies pay a lower tax rate now than under Reagan. And we're already under Bush tax cuts. Obviously they've failed the country miserably. Look at our debt. Of course the wars and social programs added to it too, but it's pretty damn hard to ignore 10 trillion dollars lol. And by the way, the recession from Reagan's time was a different recession than of now. We have a disease in the system now called bank deregulation.

The Reagan recession:
A brief recession occurred in 1980. Several key industries—including housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production—experienced a downturn from which they did not recover through the end of the next recession. Many of the economic sectors that supplied these basic industries were also hard-hit.[8] Each period of high unemployment was caused by the Federal Reserve, as it substantially increased interest rates to reduce high inflation; each time, once inflation fell and interest rates were lowered, unemployment slowly fell.

Of course you want to say it was because tax rates were cut that caused the economy to recover, even though the print in red above seemingly had nothing to do with it ::rolls eyes::

Tax cuts is wasteful government spending. Simple as that.


You sir do not understand microeconomics.


Tax cuts did NOT get us out of the recession in the early 1980's that Republicans so blindly believe. And you've made ranting statements in the past about my remarks but you don't back it up. Talk is cheap.


I never said it did.

#44
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

2) Unemployment fell and there was more money being infused into the economy. There was more certainty. And because inflation fell, people's money had more VALUE. They could buy more with their money. And that is consumer spending. That's why unemployment insurance is the best way to stimulate the economy. The Gov't is giving money to people who need it the most.


Oh so tax everyone but the rich, less...

Give money to the homeless; to the starving and to the sick, they seem to need it the most.

#45
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts



Supply side refers to so many things but in this case it is referring to the FACT that the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED government revenue. Are you denying this?


Yeah I'll deny that. Its pretty impossible to cut income and gain revenue...

Posted Image


Oh so there were tax cuts in 1940 that gained revenue... no that's WW2.
Oh so taxes were increased in 2008 meaning revenue was lost... no that's the financial crisis.
Hmmm well in the 1980's Reagan made a lot of tax cuts... Hmmm but the revenue seems to still be on the same gradient as before the tax cuts.

:mellow:

#46
Prolite

Prolite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts


Companies pay a lower tax rate now than under Reagan. And we're already under Bush tax cuts. Obviously they've failed the country miserably. Look at our debt. Of course the wars and social programs added to it too, but it's pretty damn hard to ignore 10 trillion dollars lol. And by the way, the recession from Reagan's time was a different recession than of now. We have a disease in the system now called bank deregulation.

The Reagan recession:
A brief recession occurred in 1980. Several key industries—including housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production—experienced a downturn from which they did not recover through the end of the next recession. Many of the economic sectors that supplied these basic industries were also hard-hit.[8] Each period of high unemployment was caused by the Federal Reserve, as it substantially increased interest rates to reduce high inflation; each time, once inflation fell and interest rates were lowered, unemployment slowly fell.

Of course you want to say it was because tax rates were cut that caused the economy to recover, even though the print in red above seemingly had nothing to do with it ::rolls eyes::

Tax cuts is wasteful government spending. Simple as that.


You sir do not understand microeconomics.


It's MACROeconomics, first of all. Just by that statement alone merits you as a nincompoop.

Secondly, what tax cuts in the 1940's are you referring to?! I see all tax increases.

Oh so there were tax cuts in 1940 that gained revenue... no that's WW2.
Oh so taxes were increased in 2008 meaning revenue was lost... no that's the financial crisis.
Hmmm well in the 1980's Reagan made a lot of tax cuts... Hmmm but the revenue seems to still be on the same gradient as before the tax cuts.

:mellow:


We got out of the 1930's recession because of WWII. Government spending was in the trillions during the 1940's.

Taxes were NOT increased in 2008. But then you say taxes were increased due to the financial crisis!? WHAT?! Dude, you're a weirdo. That's what you call convoluted hyperbole. :laugh:

And your last comment about Reagan tax cuts is wrong:

"Supply-side advocates claim that revenues increased, but that spending increased faster. However, they typically point to total revenues[27] even though it was only income taxes rates that were cut while other taxes, notably payroll taxes were raised.[28] That table also does not account for inflation. For example, of the increase from $600.6 billion in 1983 to $666.5 billion in 1984, $26 billion is due to inflation, $18.3 billion to corporate taxes and $21.4 billion to social insurance revenues (mostly FICA taxes).[29] Income tax revenues in constant dollars decreased by $2.77 billion in that year. Supply-siders cannot legitimately take credit for increased FICA tax revenue, because in 1983 FICA tax rates were increased from 6.7% to 7% and the ceiling was raised by $2,100. For the self employed, the FICA tax rate went from 9.35% to 14%.[30] The FICA tax rate increased throughout Reagan's term, and rose to 7.51% in 1988 and the ceiling was raised by 61% through Reagan's two terms. Those tax hikes on wage earners, along with inflation, are the source of the revenue gains of the early 1980s.[31]"
I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#47
Prolite

Prolite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts

So if I understand you correctly, the Fed is what has saved us from recessions in the past, but the Fed is tapped out at the moment, so the solution is to take on more debt to "bail out" the currently unemployed?

Economics has never been a strong suit of mine, so forgive me a bit here...

Sounds like a decent solution to me, from what I think I understand... certainly sounds better than further breaks for the already wealthy or more bailouts for Wall Street...


Each recession was different in many cases. I'm not sure how to answer your question other than by peace meal, and than you can use your own judgement pattern to identify an occurring theme.

1) The recession of the 1930's was cleared by massive government spending on public works projects because of WWII.

2) The early 1980's recession based on the evidence put forth on wikipedia seems to be because the FED corrected the markets for over inflation and the economy slowly improved. The recession of the late 1980's was lifted because of consumer certainty and consumer spending.

3) During the early 1990's recession, we got out of that one probably because of the DOT COM boom. Wikipedia doesn't say why and I was only 12-13 years old at the time so I really don't know. But the computer boom during the mid 90's was insane so it's most likely due to consumer spending and small business "dot com" startups and investments in the IPO's (stock). Remember the stock market crash in summer 2000?

4) The recession we had in 2003-2004; we never really climbed out of completely. The only thing to my recollection that got us out of that one was because of the housing boom which led to the 2008 housing crisis crash. The housing boom meant that people had an enormous amount of equity they could take out of their homes (because housing prices kept going up and people kept refinancing their homes), and that equity was turned into cold hard cash which people spent on the economy. Again, consumer spending and certainty because businesses had a steady flow of customers because their customers were spending money and saving very little.


In terms of your "bailouts for wallstreet" comment: The FED is bailing out WallStreet by buying all those junk loans that caused the economic recession, called TARP. But because inflation has stayed extremely low, the FED can continue to do this. But the problem is that printing money is causing the US currency to devalue, which is what's PART of the reason why oil prices are increasing and food as well. But the high price of energy is keeping this economy from recovering as well as the slumping housing market.

By the way, the unemployed aren't being "bailed out." Unemployment insurance is a program that everyone pays into throughout their working career, and they're entitled to unemployment checks if they've been "laid off through not fault of their own." The reason why unemployment is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy is because it's putting money into the hands of people who need it most - - which means they're going to be spending pretty much all of that money right away. That's consumer spending. It goes back into the economy.
I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#48
KingstonDon

KingstonDon

    The Rationalist Monk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • LocationKortrijk, Belgium


So if I understand you correctly, the Fed is what has saved us from recessions in the past, but the Fed is tapped out at the moment, so the solution is to take on more debt to "bail out" the currently unemployed?

Economics has never been a strong suit of mine, so forgive me a bit here...

Sounds like a decent solution to me, from what I think I understand... certainly sounds better than further breaks for the already wealthy or more bailouts for Wall Street...


Each recession was different in many cases. I'm not sure how to answer your question other than by peace meal, and than you can use your own judgement pattern to identify an occurring theme.

1) The recession of the 1930's was cleared by massive government spending on public works projects because of WWII.

2) The early 1980's recession based on the evidence put forth on wikipedia seems to be because the FED corrected the markets for over inflation and the economy slowly improved. The recession of the late 1980's was lifted because of consumer certainty and consumer spending.

3) During the early 1990's recession, we got out of that one probably because of the DOT COM boom. Wikipedia doesn't say why and I was only 12-13 years old at the time so I really don't know. But the computer boom during the mid 90's was insane so it's most likely due to consumer spending and small business "dot com" startups and investments in the IPO's (stock). Remember the stock market crash in summer 2000?

4) The recession we had in 2003-2004; we never really climbed out of completely. The only thing to my recollection that got us out of that one was because of the housing boom which led to the 2008 housing crisis crash. The housing boom meant that people had an enormous amount of equity they could take out of their homes (because housing prices kept going up and people kept refinancing their homes), and that equity was turned into cold hard cash which people spent on the economy. Again, consumer spending and certainty because businesses had a steady flow of customers because their customers were spending money and saving very little.


In terms of your "bailouts for wallstreet" comment: The FED is bailing out WallStreet by buying all those junk loans that caused the economic recession, called TARP. But because inflation has stayed extremely low, the FED can continue to do this. But the problem is that printing money is causing the US currency to devalue, which is what's PART of the reason why oil prices are increasing and food as well. But the high price of energy is keeping this economy from recovering as well as the slumping housing market.

By the way, the unemployed aren't being "bailed out." Unemployment insurance is a program that everyone pays into throughout their working career, and they're entitled to unemployment checks if they've been "laid off through not fault of their own." The reason why unemployment is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy is because it's putting money into the hands of people who need it most - - which means they're going to be spending pretty much all of that money right away. That's consumer spending. It goes back into the economy.


Indeed.

#49
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
Prolite, I was analysing the graph that Roh234 posted. ...and how it doesn't prove anything.

#50
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts


Supply side refers to so many things but in this case it is referring to the FACT that the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED government revenue. Are you denying this?


Yeah I'll deny that. Its pretty impossible to cut income and gain revenue...

Yup, you did ignore my argument. Every economist accepts the Laffer Curve. Every. Single. One. There is significant dispute over where the maximum point is (it varies depending on time and place), but the concept is undeniable. If you cut taxes, there is social mobility to higher margins. People want to make money. You increase the GDP. The theory states that a smaller percentage of a larger amount of revenue CAN be greater than a higher percentage from a smaller amount of revenue depending on where you are on the Laffer Curve.

The argument again, accept this time in big letters so you won't willfully ignore it:

With the 70% tax rate, the total revenue for the top margin was 37 billion dollars 1980. With deductions, the government collected 19 billion. After the tax cuts, the total revenue of the top margin was 353 billion dollars. The government took all 30% of that and got 100 billion in 1988. By slashing taxes from 70% to 30%, the government collected 5 times more revenue.

#51
truthiness

truthiness

    The Squire of Gothos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo MI

With the 70% tax rate, the total revenue for the top margin was 37 billion dollars 1980. With deductions, the government collected 19 billion. After the tax cuts, the total revenue of the top margin was 353 billion dollars. The government took all 30% of that and got 100 billion in 1988. By slashing taxes from 70% to 30%, the government collected 5 times more revenue.


I shrank that down to size. I hope you don't mind. Couple of things... Is this taking into account inflation, and what do you mean when you say the "top margin"? Is that a specific percentage of earners, or is that the top tax bracket? I ask because in 1988 there were far fewer tax brackets than there were back in 1980.

Thanks for bearing with me back there, Prolite... so you would not advocate allocating additional funds above and beyond what is entitled to workers through unemployment benefits in the event that this recession continues or worsens, then?
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one

#52
Prolite

Prolite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts

Thanks for bearing with me back there, Prolite... so you would not advocate allocating additional funds above and beyond what is entitled to workers through unemployment benefits in the event that this recession continues or worsens, then?


I would definitely be for extending unemployment benefits, but I would do it more specifically. There needs to be a way to help those who have been out of work for years because they're not in the economy spending money. These people are highly skilled workers and probably had jobs which were niche in their market. But I wouldn't enact a program for unemployment that would give them more money than their entitled to, which is based on a percentage of the income they've earned from personal income taxes. The best way to get the economy going again is reinstate Glass/Stegall and get gasoline prices back down to $1.53 a gallon again. Moreover, the FED needs to figure out how to fix the housing market. In a way, it's doing that now but the same lax banking regulations are in place. The last thing we can do is tax the ultra rich in this country and allocate that money to growing businesses in the form of loans and grants, to growing industries such as biotechnology and other areas of the economy that hold up well to a bad economy. I otherwise don't know at the moment. Building new roads and forms of transportation is probably another great thing to do: anything that involves the shipment of people and goods, is good for business.
I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#53
Zachemc2

Zachemc2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts


Thanks for bearing with me back there, Prolite... so you would not advocate allocating additional funds above and beyond what is entitled to workers through unemployment benefits in the event that this recession continues or worsens, then?

The best way to get the economy going again is reinstate Glass/Stegall and get gasoline prices back down to $1.53 a gallon again.

You do realize that gas prices can't go down, regulation or not, if we can't drill more oil, right?

#54
truthiness

truthiness

    The Squire of Gothos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo MI

You do realize that gas prices can't go down, regulation or not, if we can't drill more oil, right?


I was wondering this as well... how do you propose we get back to $1.53 a gallon? And why $1.53, as opposed to $1.62 or $1.49? I assume that you are implying that ending oil speculation will lead to a reduction in oil prices. I agree with that, but by more than half? The underlying problem regarding rising prices, speculation or no, is the inability for world oil production to keep up with demand as we reach global peak oil. Is there a source for the $1.53 number?
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one

#55
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace
The price of oil is down just our gas prices are not.....

http://www.oil-price.net/

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#56
Prolite

Prolite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts



Thanks for bearing with me back there, Prolite... so you would not advocate allocating additional funds above and beyond what is entitled to workers through unemployment benefits in the event that this recession continues or worsens, then?

The best way to get the economy going again is reinstate Glass/Stegall and get gasoline prices back down to $1.53 a gallon again.

You do realize that gas prices can't go down, regulation or not, if we can't drill more oil, right?


LOL, I can't believe we're back to this argument again. I already stated my argument. If you don't understand it or refuse to change your mind about it by now, than it's never going to happen. You have this gung-ho attitude about drilling for more oil. Someone's gonna have to take you on a field trip to an oil field where they drill and explain to you the economics and business behind it. Because at this point, your blind ideology is just preventing you from learning new information especially about business (I'm referring to the energy costs of creating additional drilling sites and that it would be a net loss based on the current price of oil on the market).

You DO realize that oil companies own leases to lots of oil fields and are allowed to drill there but they don't? Obviously it's not profitable, yet. The market and oil speculators says it's not.
I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#57
Prolite

Prolite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts

The price of oil is down just our gas prices are not.....

http://www.oil-price.net/


Yes, that's because of price gauging. The media needs to get all over this or gas stations will never lower their prices that commensurate with price of oil.
I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#58
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Yup, you did ignore my argument. Every economist accepts the Laffer Curve. Every. Single. One. There is significant dispute over where the maximum point is (it varies depending on time and place), but the concept is undeniable. If you cut taxes, there is social mobility to higher margins. People want to make money. You increase the GDP. The theory states that a smaller percentage of a larger amount of revenue CAN be greater than a higher percentage from a smaller amount of revenue depending on where you are on the Laffer Curve.

The argument again, accept this time in big letters so you won't willfully ignore it:

With the 70% tax rate, the total revenue for the top margin was 37 billion dollars 1980. With deductions, the government collected 19 billion. After the tax cuts, the total revenue of the top margin was 353 billion dollars. The government took all 30% of that and got 100 billion in 1988. By slashing taxes from 70% to 30%, the government collected 5 times more revenue.


Oh you were talking about the Laffer Curve. I should of known when everything you said was backwards.

And the large profit the rich made had nothing to do with Reagan abolishing unions, basically allowing people to get ripped off.


Now, because historically the government never gets more than 18.5% of the GDP in taxes no matter what the rate is, I say we should have a 18% flat or fair rate. I believe this will generate the highest revenue. Get rid of the capital gains tax (please God get rid of that one even if you raise the income tax to 50%, it is the most astoundingly stupid tax ever devised) and the estate tax. Get rid of double/triple/quadruple taxation.

Unfortunately what you believe will send the USA into a bigger problem.
Posted Image
-- When ever the rich have a lot of money, bad things happen. I wonder what happens next on the graph...
  • wjfox and truthiness like this

#59
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
Cool, you ignored the argument again. Let's try again, maybe the third time's the charm. Every time you willfully ignore it I'll bring it up again with an even bigger font:

With the 70% tax rate, the total revenue for the top margin was 37 billion dollars 1980. With deductions, the government collected 19 billion. After the tax cuts, the total revenue of the top margin was 353 billion dollars. The government took all 30% of that and got 100 billion in 1988. By slashing taxes from 70% to 30%, the government collected 5 times more revenue.

Even economists like Paul Krugman accepts the Laffer Curve because the empirical evidence for it is unmistakable.

@truthiness
The top marginal bracket stayed the same in 1980 and 1988. It was anyone who made over $250,000. It doesn't count for inflation, but I doubt the dollar was devalued more than 80% between 1980 and 1988 lol. There are inflation calculators online. I'll run it through really quick:

Turns out the 100 billion was only 70 billion in 1980 dollars. Still 3.5 times more revenue by cutting the tax rate so severely.

#60
truthiness

truthiness

    The Squire of Gothos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo MI

The top marginal bracket stayed the same in 1980 and 1988. It was anyone who made over $250,000. It doesn't count for inflation, but I doubt the dollar was devalued more than 80% between 1980 and 1988 lol. There are inflation calculators online. I'll run it through really quick:

Turns out the 100 billion was only 70 billion in 1980 dollars. Still 3.5 times more revenue by cutting the tax rate so severely.


Inflation can do funny things. If 100 billion in 1988 was 70 billion in 1980 then $250,000 in 1980 would be just north of $350,000 in 1988, which means that there would suddenly be a lot more people in that top bracket. Maybe even 3.5 times more people.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: USA, Budget, The future, Future, NASA

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users