Hmmmmm! Tax cuts for the rich, Federal revenues up! Projected deficit down!

[Boomyal]

Re: Hmmmmm! Tax cuts for the rich, Federal revenues up! Projected deficit down!

This is one of the times simple arthmetic doesn't give an accurate result because of human variables. :/

I think this is a time that we could say the the sum equals more than the total of all the parts.d8)

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Hmmmmm! Tax cuts for the rich, Federal revenues up! Projected deficit down!

Please don't tell me you took those classes because, if you did, you must not have studied very hard.

As a matter of fact, he must have slept through them.zzz

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Hmmmmm! Tax cuts for the rich, Federal revenues up! Projected deficit down!

Less is more.8)

 

[Parrott_head]

Re: Hmmmmm! Tax cuts for the rich, Federal revenues up! Projected deficit down!

Here is a neat site....

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Quick, what is the difference between "Budget Deficit" vs. "National Debt"?

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Hmmmmm! Tax cuts for the rich, Federal revenues up! Projected deficit down!

Here is a neat site....

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Quick, what is the difference between "Budget Deficit" vs. "National Debt"?

Budget deficit is the negative difference between the projected annual budget and the projected annual tax revenues.

The Nation debt is the accumulation of actual annual national shortfalls in revenue versus expenditures.

 

[PW2]

Re: Hmmmmm! Tax cuts for the rich, Federal revenues up! Projected deficit down!

. . . Does it even cross your mind that lowering tax rates could possibly lead to higher revenues? Prosperity? Growth? Here's a novel one: fewer people in poverty? Oh, oh, more jobs? Didn't think so.

:%

Well, Economics is a complex science. Yep, it can be the case that decreases in rates lead to increases in revenues. To the extent that lowered rates lead directly to more investment, and more economic activity, that is the case.

But it is certainly not a linear relationship, and I would argue that with the low interest rates we have had for the past few years, capital has not been the problem--markets have.

Under those circumstances, to stimulate the economy (if that is the goal) it is far more effective to give middle income payers a cut, while maintaining upper income payers at status quo. The middle folks are the ones that spend it, and allow the upper income ones to reap the benefit of that increased spending and earn more...

The point is, different circumstances require different solutions, but you have to raise enough revenue to fund the gov't, and you have to plan ahead to fund future needs (like increases in SS)

It is a delicate balance, and what worked 10 or 20 years ago may not work today.

 

[QC]

Re: Hmmmmm! Tax cuts for the rich, Federal revenues up! Projected deficit down!

PW,

Thanks for responding. We agree on most of what you said, where we differ is that the super rich, the simply rich and the so-so rich also spend dough that creates jobs. They are also the quickest to entrench when it is in their favor. If tax rates are higher they look for ways to rearrange to minimize payment. The other way they look for ways to spend . . . on investments and stuff, both create jobs.

you have to raise enough revenue to fund the gov't,

Ultimately the question then becomes how big of a gov't do you want to fund? I would submit this is where our other differences lie . . .

 

[rottenray6402]

Re: Hmmmmm! Tax cuts for the rich, Federal revenues up! Projected deficit down!

PW, believe it or not I agree with most of what you just wrote. Economics are very complex and when you get right down to it nobody really knows what drives them except for certain absolutes. Also you are exactly right about the low interest rates coupled with huge amounts of cash taken out of the stock market setting in money market accts or what ever creating a cash rich position if anything. The problem is invester confidence with people flying airplanes into our buildings, the war in Iraq, terrible natural disasters, etc. Also Social Security is supposed to be a "stand alone" entitlement not funded out of the general fund. I am with QC in my difference , and it is a big one, is how big government should be. It was never meant to be anything other than a central area for the defense of the country. I don't know how things are in Mich. but here every dollar of my property taxes goes to fund medicaid. I believe in a hand up for those in need but I am tired of going without things for my family so I can pay my tax which a large portion goes to supporting people unwilling to work. Lastly where we disagree is that the upper rich (who determines that anyhow?) are for the most part the ones that supply jobs. More jobs, more people paying taxes that is simple economics!

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Hmmmmm! Tax cuts for the rich, Federal revenues up! Projected deficit down!

PW,

Ultimately the question then becomes how big of a gov't do you want to fund? I would submit this is where our other differences lie . . .

I believe that recognition qualifies you to be a brain surgeon QC