or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Supply Sider's Debt Crisis Solution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Supply Sider's Debt Crisis Solution - Page 2

post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Maybe we could have a "Grand Compromise" with Obama with these conditions...and in the process conduct a great experiment on supply side economics...The compromise would be:

$4 trillion in immediate entitlements only spending cuts.

$1 trillion in immediate tax increases on people making $250K and higher.

With the following important conditions:

1. We have a bipartisan commission of economists to measure job creation and economic growth following the spending cuts and tax increases. Following a 12 month period from day of enactment of the tax increases, the commission measures the amount of job creation and growth above an agreed upon baseline.

2. If the job creation and growth has not been negatively impacted by more than 3% then the tax increases stay.

3. If jobs are destroyed during the 12 month test period then the tax increases immediately go away and instead 10% across the board tax decreases are implemented.

The benefits would be to test once and for all if massive tax increases harm the economy if only on those making $250K. This would provide substantial evidence on whether some of our supply side ideas work and the suggestion that small business and general hiring is negatively impacted by tax increases.

By taking this tax question off the table through the experiment, we could focus on better policies.

Why do you hate America?

As an aside, I love how people have targeted 250K. You, and every monkey in Washington, still can't answer why someone making $250K should be taxed at the same rate as someone making $5 million. It is an easy starting point that the republican could concede-- oh wait the people running for office don't care about the people, only the hand that feeds them.
post #17 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post
I feel like you want to argue against what the Dems in Congress are advocating -- but frankly most serious progressive economists and commentators aren't really advocating what the Dems in Congress are advocating, and I'm certainly not a fan of it either.

Okay, so this is interesting to me. We may be getting somewhere. If what you say is true then how can we bridge the gap between more reasonable policies of no tax increases with the politics of the party?

This seems problematic at least on the surface. The media does not seem to be calling Obama on the fake urgency of tax increases and the Dem think tanks, at least to my knowledge, are not strongly advocating against the President...how does the voter learn about the dangers of tax increases in a weak recovery?
post #18 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zarathustra View Post
Why do you hate America?

As an aside, I love how people have targeted 250K. You, and every monkey in Washington, still can't answer why someone making $250K should be taxed at the same rate as someone making $5 million. It is an easy starting point that the republican could concede-- oh wait the people running for office don't care about the people, only the hand that feeds them.

I don't hate America of course and I only mention $250K because that is what the latest Dem proposal says.

It's frankly a dangerously low number. It will hurt a lot pf Sub-chapter S companies.
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Okay, so this is interesting to me. We may be getting somewhere. If what you say is true then how can we bridge the gap between more reasonable policies of no tax increases with the politics of the party? This seems problematic at least on the surface. The media does not seem to be calling Obama on the fake urgency of tax increases and the Dem think tanks, at least to my knowledge, are not strongly advocating against the President...how does the voter learn about the dangers of tax increases in a weak recovery?
Well, I guess here's my sort of back-of-the-envelope diagnosis for what might be the reasoning behind Democrats offering what they're offering right now: (1) The GOP won the "deficit > unemployment" battle. The deficit is the number one priority in Washington right now, Democrat or Republican, with the exception of a seemingly small number of progressives in the Congress. So, this should be a win for the GOP. They've managed to convince the Democrats that slashing the deficit is an immediate concern -- whether through truly convincing the Dems of the importance of the deficit (I think Obama and other centrist or center-right Dems are here), or making them believe it's a political necessity (the rest of the centrists and much of the center-left Dems). The Dems have seemingly abandoned progressive economic doctrine entirely on this issue. They no longer seem to believe that cutting deficits would harm the economy, or that government spending can help the economy -- they've abandoned a core principle of progressive governance. (2) The GOP has almost won the debate that entitlement reform is necessary to bring the deficit down. They've certainly won the White House on this, as well as many centrist and center-right Dems, especially in the Senate. Certainly it seems they could whip enough support, with the help of the president, to move a deal through if they accepted one. (3) However, the GOP has not won the debate on taxes. This is probably in large part because raising taxes on the rich continues to poll so strongly as a method for reducing the deficit -- much stronger than entitlement reform. Where Republicans can point to the poll numbers on the deficit and set Dems shaking in their boots, Dems see one last foothold of political superiority, and it happens to coincide with what is ostensibly one of the primary values of progressivism -- a more equal distribution of wealth. So, how does a Democratic politician see the issue? In the past, they've generally seen cuts as the economically negative measure -- not tax hikes. However they've been brought around that somehow cuts won't hurt, or will even help the economy. So, what's different about taxes, then? Dems have abandoned a coherent economic position -- they no longer seem interested in progressive economics, and they're still not beholden to conservative economics. It's that the GOP has won the issue of the deficit so thoroughly that it's set the Dems trying to understand it and work to cut it using the tools and ideas they're still familiar with. Of course, while I support the notion that tax hikes are harmful and wrong, I believe the same about cutting spending -- which I think is a much more coherent position than believing that one is harmful but not the other. It's simple GDP.
post #20 of 27
Maybe I missed it, but what about Capital Gains? I am a little unclear if this is open territory currently. Apologies in advance if I've greatly over looked this thread, or the entire debate for that matter.
post #21 of 27
^The CGT reference earlier in the thread is the capital gains tax.
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by cross22 View Post
^The CGT reference earlier in the thread is the capital gains tax.
Totally missed it the first go round. Can't say I agree with the argument provided, but thanks. Without meaning to incite anything, but out of curiosity... Is there a person here who can say they will hire people if there taxes are low/lowered? Say you make 250k, actually only answer if truly you do. Do Capital Gains influence your ability to provide meaningful impact on the economy? Would an increased CGT stifle this? Maybe one of you could direct me to a study about CGT? I ask because it's relevant to my situation and many I know. Or like all pundits are we pontificating on that which is not in our purview, but our opinions. Again, not attempting to incite. Just looking for elucidation.
post #23 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokely View Post
Totally missed it the first go round. Can't say I agree with the argument provided, but thanks.

Look at the last CGT decrease and the resulting tax receipt increase.
post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Look at the last CGT decrease and the resulting tax receipt increase.
Splain' it to me, in your words how that worked. Maybe I'm wrong but we entered into a recession when it was decreased. Or shortly thereafter W did his work. However I may not understand something here.
post #25 of 27
was the OP supposed to be a joke or unintentional ... you realize that in that scenario if the economy recovers the libs will attribute it to tax hikes and if it tanks they will attribute it to spending cuts right? well played ...
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientific View Post
was the OP supposed to be a joke or unintentional ... you realize that in that scenario if the economy recovers the libs will attribute it to tax hikes and if it tanks they will attribute it to spending cuts right? well played ...
While not science, fairly scientific
post #27 of 27
Anyone have that experience?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Supply Sider's Debt Crisis Solution