Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes, Best for Deficit: NABE

Excluding short-term stimulus spending, the Obama administration discretionary spending is well in line with or less than historical averages over the last 50 years.

Our current deficit is less a result of uncontrolled spending than it is a result of tax cuts that primarily benefited the rich at a time when we were fighting several expensive wars.

Our spending as a percent of GDP is not out of line with that of other developed countries.

However, revenue we collect as a percent of GDP is extraordinarily low historically and compared to that of other developed nations.

We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.

If we brought revenue as a percent of GDP up to the level of taxation of most developed countries—which we could do by simply raising the top marginal rate paid by the richest Americans and closing tax loopholes exploited by corporations and the rich to avoid paying taxes—we could greatly reduce the long-term deficit and perhaps drive it to historic lows.

http://www.theattackdemocrat.com/2011/08/truth-about-ten-common-republican-myths.html
 
Tax increases have a minimum, if any, impact on job creation, particularly if they involve increasing the top marginal rate.

For example, increasing the top marginal rate from 35% to 39% or even 45% would have almost no impact on job creation or loss.

The simple fact is businesses don’t hire or have layoffs because of the top marginal rate their owners pay.

They hire or layoff workers based upon an increase or decrease in demand for goods and services from their customers.

An increase in taxes could only cost jobs if it was targeted at Americans at the low and/or mid-income levels.

In contrast, tax cuts for Americans at low income levels can have a positive impact on jobs because Americans with low incomes are more likely to spend the tax savings immediately for food, housing, clothing, and so on and therefore increase demand.

Rich people and people with upper-middle incomes are less likely to immediately spend any tax savings since they can already cover life essentials without the tax savings.


http://www.theattackdemocrat.com/2011/08/truth-about-ten-common-republican-myths.html
 
Tax the Rich, Stupids!

The Dude said:
Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes, Best for Deficit: NABE
The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.


The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending.

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation's debt ceiling.

The agreement managed to avert a potential default, but Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. credit from AAA to AA+, citing the political wrangling over the deal as a reason.

According to the survey of 250 economists who are members of NABE, nearly 49 percent of those responding said the country's fiscal policy should be more restrictive, while nearly 37 percent said they believe the government should do more to stimulate the economy. The remainder said fiscal policy should remain the same.
At the same time, more than 70 percent of the people that responded said they expect U.S. fiscal policy to be more restrictive over the next two years.

In the area of U.S. monetary policy, more than half of the economists surveyed said they thought it was "about right," while over a third said it was "too stimulative." Less than 6 percent said it was "too restrictive." The rest did not know or didn't give an opinion.

The survey was taken before the Federal Reserve announcement that it expects to keep short-term interest rates at their current low levels into 2013.

At the same time, the respondents were nearly evenly split on whether U.S. monetary policy will stay the same or be more restrictive in the future, with those options getting about 42 percent of responses each. Nearly 15 percent of those surveyed say they believe monetary policy will be more stimulative down the road.
Click to expand...

Thursday 18 August 2011
by: Maya Schenwar and Matt Renner, Truthout

Congress, as an institution, currently has a lower approval rating than public nose-picking. One reason is that it can’t seem to listen to the over 60 percent of the population that feels that taxing the rich and corporations should be the first step in any effort to balance the nation’s checkbook. This isn’t some populist anger, as the mainstream media often describes it. It’s proven economics.

So what is standing in the way? Where is our system of representative democracy failing? Truthout and BuzzFlash readers know: we’ve entered a new stage of plutocratic governance where money is speech and the ones with the gold make the rules. Authors like Thom Hartmann, Richard D. Wolff and Noam Chomsky probe this frightening reality on a daily basis, exposing the crude inner workings of the system - as well as possibilities for true, revolutionary change.

As we descend into what already appears to be the least sane campaign season of our lifetimes, Truthout needs your support. We’ll never match the money-hoarders in political spending. But we can shine light on the hypocrisy, and develop the clear moral arguments that can win the day.

taxtherich2.jpg


tax-the-rich-cartoon.jpg


cole.jpg


63470053-tax-cuts-for-rich.jpg
 
Businesses aren’t hiring because of a lack of demand for their goods and services and because their CEOs are uncertain about the future state of the U.S. and European economies.

They fear a second recession that might reduce demand even further.

The Republican-induced inability of Congress to reach agreement on legislation to reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy in the short-term and to deal with the long-term deficit has generated this uncertainty.

The legislative gridlock over employment and the deficit has been created by the Republican Party for political reasons.

http://www.theattackdemocrat.com/2011/08/truth-about-ten-common-republican-myths.html
 
The effective tax rate the average American pays is one of the lowest levels of the past 50 years and is significantly less than the tax rate paid by citizens of other developed countries.

Additionally, the amount of taxes U.S. corporations actually pay is less than or on a par with that paid by corporations in other developed countries.

We are not over-taxed, we are under-taxed.

We have a revenue problem largely due to tax cuts.

http://www.theattackdemocrat.com/2011/08/truth-about-ten-common-republican-myths.html
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Dude, I'm not saying wether I agree or disagree with their proposal but come one....like I said....tell me once when business economist have ever been for a tax hike? Just once!
Click to expand...
"...37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases."

Satisfied?
 
Superfreak said:
bottom line is that ALL income should be taxed at the SAME rate. Unless you can explain to me why someone should get a break simply because of the TYPE of income?
Click to expand...
Or taxed MORE simply because of the source. Neither is a defensible position, yet we see, daily, republicans and democrats arguing about taxation of dividend income, one claiming it's double taxation and should not be taxed at all, the other saying it should be taxed at punitive rates because it is "not earned".
 
Good Luck said:
Or taxed MORE simply because of the source. Neither is a defensible position, yet we see, daily, republicans and democrats arguing about taxation of dividend income, one claiming it's double taxation and should not be taxed at all, the other saying it should be taxed at punitive rates because it is "not earned".
Click to expand...

Valid point. In my simplified tax code, the corporate income tax would cease to exist and all income from all sources would be taxed at 20% (for income up to $1mm) and 30% (for all income over that). Standard deduction would be 30k per adult. Numbers used are just to show how it would work. Would actually have to have the numbers crunched to make sure that raised the necessary revenue to pay our bills and pay down the debt.
 
signalmankenneth said:
Thursday 18 August 2011
by: Maya Schenwar and Matt Renner, Truthout

Congress, as an institution, currently has a lower approval rating than public nose-picking. One reason is that it can’t seem to listen to the over 60 percent of the population that feels that taxing the rich and corporations should be the first step in any effort to balance the nation’s checkbook. This isn’t some populist anger, as the mainstream media often describes it. It’s proven economics.

So what is standing in the way? Where is our system of representative democracy failing? Truthout and BuzzFlash readers know: we’ve entered a new stage of plutocratic governance where money is speech and the ones with the gold make the rules. Authors like Thom Hartmann, Richard D. Wolff and Noam Chomsky probe this frightening reality on a daily basis, exposing the crude inner workings of the system - as well as possibilities for true, revolutionary change.

As we descend into what already appears to be the least sane campaign season of our lifetimes, Truthout needs your support. We’ll never match the money-hoarders in political spending. But we can shine light on the hypocrisy, and develop the clear moral arguments that can win the day.
Click to expand...

Instead of posting ridiculous cartoons... how about you answer the simple question ken.... WHO pays the corporate income tax YOU want to raise so badly?
 
A corporate income tax can be paid by one of the following groups....

1) Stockholders/owners
2) Executives of the company
3) Other employees of the company
4) Consumers

Which do you think pays the corporate income tax Mott?

Just in case you missed it Mott.....
 
Superfreak said:
A corporate income tax can be paid by one of the following groups....

1) Stockholders/owners
2) Executives of the company
3) Other employees of the company
4) Consumers

Which do you think pays the corporate income tax Mott?

Just in case you missed it Mott.....
Click to expand...


Who do you think pays corporate income taxes? And I don't think it has to be "one" of the above. It can be one, two, three or all of the above, can' tit?
 
I also think this thread is hilarious, what without the link to the source for the article in the OP. I wonder why the link is missing.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Who do you think pays corporate income taxes? And I don't think it has to be "one" of the above. It can be one, two, three or all of the above, can' tit?
Click to expand...

I think it is predominantly #4 and to a lesser extent #3 (overall, individual companies will vary based on what good/service they produce and the pricing flexibility that is associated with that good/service)

I think it is rarer for it to hit #2 and #1, though there will be examples where it does happen.

Bottom line, the corporate income tax system is a monstrosity. We can eliminate it all together provided we make sure the personal tax code is modified as well (meaning divs/cap gains/earned income all taxed at same rate(s))

Also... yes, it can certainly be a combination, it is not an all or none situation with any of the four groups. But I believe you will find the lion's share goes to #4 and #3.
 
A corporate income tax can be paid by one of the following groups....

1) Stockholders/owners
2) Executives of the company
3) Other employees of the company
4) Consumers

Which do you think pays the corporate income tax Mott?

Just in case you missed it Mott.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top