I hope you get your way and the Dems raise taxes as much as you want. That razor thin margin you have may not last for 40 years. One of the fun things for the next couple of years is being able to hang every failure on the Dems and there will be many.
That's kind of true, republicans bribe the gullible public with tax cuts that they have no way to pay for, wreck the budget, run up deficits and then the Dems have to come in and implement unpopular but absolutely necessary measures in order to avoid catastrofic results of irresponsible republican policies. You have nothing to be proud of though. You support the war, you support the troops but god forbid you're going to be asked to pay for it. As far as 2008 is concerned - don't count your chickens just yet "The 2006 Senate map was terrible... We had 18 Democratic seats to defend, including in red and purple places like Florida, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Nebraska, North Dakota, and West Virginia. Republicans had only 15 seats to defend, and were only defending Blue states in Rhode Island, Maine, and Pennsylvania. ... 2008 looks far, far different... In two years, Republicans will be defending 21 seats, to 12 of our own. A large number of those Republicans will be freshmen." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/9/141055/253
At this point anyone who would presume to understand the economy and managing the governments financial books better than Robert Rubin is a complete imbecile. NOONE understands the interplay between the economy, markets, and government better than Rubin. As a former football coach I get a real kick out of sitting in the stands and hearing the fans chatter about how the coach is an idiot etc etc. The whole while not even having an inkling of an idea about what is really going on in the game. You tell a tree by the fruit that it bears. Rubin bore incredible fruit as Treasury Secretary, undoubtedly the best performance of any Treasury Secretary in this nations history. Like in the football stands last night I am sitting here laughing my ass off at the imbeciles who would presume to know better than Rubin.
I know my example was absurd. It was intentional. The point is, that at a certain point more government and more spending is not better. It becomes detrimental to the economy, people's lives etc. At what tax rate and amount of spending is therefor the most efficient and does the most amount of good for the public? You have politicians and other interests feeding uncontrollably at the trough telling us how they are helping us. I'm not feeling any better.
The point is, that at a certain point more government and more spending is not better. It becomes detrimental to the economy, people's lives etc. Of course, I don't know anyone who would dispute that, but we'are not nearly at that point and we're not talking about doubling taxes, we're talking about extremely marginal tax increase for extremely rich individuals. If you believe Bill Gates will stop working if his tax rate goes from 37% to 39% - think again. At what tax rate and amount of spending is therefor the most efficient and does the most amount of good for the public? this article claims that it's between 65% and 80%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve This should not be interpreted as a recommended tax rate, it's absurd, unacceptable and extremely high, the data simply indicates that rates below 65% don't affect the productivity.
Taxes are simple, it's someone else spending some of my money on my behalf. I earn $1 of which say 60 cents I retain spending discretion on and 40 cents I assign that spending discretion to the government. Assuming the government did such an incredible job with spending my money that I am thoroughly satisfied, why, they should have all of it. 100% taxation. So, we need to treat the government like a kid asking for an allowance. If they do a good job we increase that allowance, if they do a bad job, we decrease that allowance. Given all that's been going on with the ballooning budget, ineffectual and incompetent attempts to fix the serious problems in the country such as healthcare, education and social security and the circus we have in Iraq and at our airports where we pay guards to create long lines and harass us for carrying water to the plane, I'd say this kid needs to be taken out the woodshed and given a few good whacks with the paddleboard.
No one doubts Ruben is a bright guy. Like Corzine he was an actual trader before joining management at Goldman. When I started in the bond pit Corzine was Goldman's long bond trader and he was a crackerjack. But like Corzine, Ruben's strictly partisan. It takes a liberal without redemption to claim that raising taxes is the only way to balance the budget. So much for Clinton/Gore's, "new way of looking at government." A couple of ET'ers mentioned how in broadstrokes much of Federal spending in agriculture, education and commerce could be eliminated. Then there's the matter of unionized Federal employees and their off the wall retirement packages. Does Muriel the receptionists in Uncle Dick's insurance agency expect to retire on 75% of her last paycheck? Then why should LaSheba working for HUD in D.C. receive benefits far and above those available to private retirees on SS. Doesn't any liberal sense the injustice in asking American's to pay higher taxes as a means to subsidize retirements greater than their own? Presently there's nearly 15,000,000 Federal employee's including military. Anyone who suggest that a substantial number of those positions cannot be eliminated in toto or at worse through attrition is part of the fiscal problem rather than actively seeking solutions.
One major reason why republicans have so much trouble managing the economy, why they get into office and find themselves hostage to pressures they never imagined, is because they have remained in denial for over a half a century regarding economics. Whether you agree philosophically or not this economy, the world economy, was essentially overhauled and built by John Maynard Keynes. Likewise it responds like a Keynsian economy. When Clinton raised taxes in 1993 every republican in sight said it was going to kill the economy, yet the economy went on an unprecented run of solid growth, low inflation, low interest rates, and government surplus'. Trying to manage economic policy by applying unrestrained Fiscal stimulus and relying on Fed policy to do all the leaning against the wind is short sighted, inefficient, and irresponsible. There is a time for tax cuts and a time for tax increases. Anyone who is always stuck in the one gear and constantly parrots the "Tax Cut" mantra obviously has a very poor understanding of a Keynsian economy. Liberal and/or Conservative labels mean absolutely nothing. Facts are facts. I would actually think that the time to raise taxes has passed us by and that they should have been raised last year and possibly cut in the coming year. HOWEVER, I am certainly in no position to disregard Robert Rubin's input.
We all seem to be talking about taxes as if they are all the same. I agree with dddooo that an upper income person who sees his rate go from 37% to 39% will probable have little if any effect on his/her spending. But if your talking about raising capital gains taxes, I think you will definitely get some unintended results. Anyone remember the last time we had a "luxury" tax? It almost put the boat manufacturers out of business. Another point I have made before is that over 40 million working Americans pay no income tax and in many cases get a "refund". I think that is just wrong. If your working you should pay something, even if it's just token. I think we can agree that taxes need to be fair, its defining what is fair that is the problem.
Yeah, "luxury tax" - just like monopoly, right? Our governement will try to figure out ways to be "fair" to everyone concerned, with the possible exception of the most wealthy, LOL. We all want to support our troops, catch the terrorists, keep our streets safe, feel safe and secure, but no one wants to pay for all this. Education "should" only be paid by those with children? No, we all should share the expense of raising a new generation of Americans who, hopefully, will be a little smarter than our generation has proven to be at times. It is not Socialism to pay for a common good, it is simply the pooling of resources for the greater good, just like economies of scale. Has our government kept our interests in mind at all times, hell no, but we still need to contribute to society. Yes, gov't should spend less with less waste, but we should be able to run like a business. When things are going bad, with unforeseen expenses, even like the Irag war, we have pay up a bit. c