My Little China Debt

  • Anonymous

     Rodney, you may be concerned about the debt, but Republican mover n shakers are even less concerned about the fiscal  ‘debt crisis’ than the Dems..The Ryan budget calls for an increase in the debt ceiling and deficit. What they want is a permanent plutocracy, more income inequality, even  less taxes for the rich, and a continuation of their pet tax breaks, hence they are getting the vapors on possibly losing tax breaks for corporate jets.
     
    Taxes are the lowest, for the rich, since 1950, which will mean less revenue for the government , a futher reprise of the Bush Dubya  years, plus a widening military, more Ayn Rand  economics, with true religion thrown as red meat for their apologists like Jay  and believers such as Rick 

    As for the American  enterpreurial spirit, that this side is always bleating about, it  is well known that the only entrepreneurs that use their own money are the failed ones, the successful ones use other people´s money, mainly the  bank´s who end up being bailed out often as not by the taxpayer..

    • Anonymous

      Bullshit at it’s best.

  • Anonymous

    “Taxes are the lowest, for the rich, since 1950, which will mean less revenue for the government ,”

    That’s not a bad thing.  Government is feeling the pressure to deal with their foolish expenditures over the years which will only grow until People who are serious about living within ones means are in power. Will likely collapse first, but you vote fools in year after year with no accountability and we have to clean up their free lunch mess.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Crickmore, you are a complete, 100% idiot if you believe even 1% of what you post here.

    Obama tripled the deficit in his first year, and in February presented a budget adding $600 billion a year to the debt going forward with no end in sight.  He couldn’t even get a single Democratic vote in the Senate for it, promised a replacement budget but once again lied.

    Ryan’s budget did add to the debt for the first few years, but at least it made an attempt to rein in the growth of spending and entitlements.  And Democrats squealed like stuck pigs at that.

    We don’t have a revenue problem beyond the massive unemployment caused by Obama’s anti-business and anti-energy policies and regulatory attitude of rule by fiat like a dictator.  Few companies will dare to hire and expand when they cannot predict the costs even one year down the road.

    As to “taxing the rich,” if you collected Obama’s vaunted “corporate jet tax break” money for 5000 years, you would only cover his defict for a little over one month.  It’s a diversion.  “Tax the rich?”  Hell, if you just confiscated every bit of money and property from every American millionaire, you couldn’t run the country for a year. 

    Our problem is Democrats’ drastic and insane spending, which began with Pelosi and Reid in 2007 and got worse under Obama.  We need to cut it now, and we don’t need more revenue to do that.

    Why don’t you just move to a socialist paradise like North Korea?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Adjoran,

      A Party which FAILED to introduce, let alone debate nor pass, budgets over a two year period when they controlled both houses of Congress AND the White House is delinquent in their Constitutional duties and demonstrably un-concerned with fiscal sobriety.

  • Anonymous

    Sure Obama´s stimulus bill may have have been wasteful, following Bush´s costly 2003 medicare prescription bill and unfunded Iraq and Afgnhanistan wars plus the drastic reduced taxes for the wealthy. Let us call it even!
     
    What can we do now? I agree federal tax policies should be much more hiring friendly. Why even have a payroll tax? Begin a process to  single payer health plans.Why should employers have to cover expensive health plans of workers etc. Everything should be done to encourage employment.

     Reveune shortfalls could be increased by taxing hedge funds, capital gains, the same as other forms of income, and so on.

    But the GOP seems more focused on preserving the comfortable CEOs, than reducing unemployment .After tax corporate profits and productivity are already up, because of streamlining. There is little incentive to change.

    • Anonymous

      Triple the deficit under Bush and call it even?  Hell, you aren’t slicing pie at my house!

  • Anonymous

    Blame it on the Kool Aid.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

    Mr. Crickmore,

    ” Why even have a payroll tax?”  Because St. Franklin started a retirement program called “Social Security.”  That’s how the retirement supplement was “supposed” to be funded.  Later, St. Lyndon added a medical insurance program for the elderly called “Medicare.”  More was added to the payroll tax to fund that. 

    Do you know what encourages employers?  The assumption that if they hire someone, they will make a return on investment from the money they pay employees (Oh, the Greed!).  If you tax those employers at 38%, or 50%, or 70% rates, the return on investment from hiring goes down.  Why risk your money if your return is going to be taxed away?  The employer portion of payroll tax is 7.65% – do you think that eliminating this would have a significant impact on hiring?  What would have a greater impact: Reducing payroll tax by 7.65% or increasing income taxes on my profits by 10% (or 20% or whatever)?  Please think about it – maybe even do the math.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Math is not a strong point among the left…

  • Anonymous

    I am doing the math. After deductions, real corporate profits are taxed about 25%, the top weighted income tax is what 33%, capital gains, hedge funds about 15%..These are profits after expenses and deductions. What do you think is fairer way of paying for the miltary which so behooves the right and en toto, costs about 50 % of government revenue.Fix  the spiralling medical costs, cut the military by a third, and the USA could practically be a tax haven!

  • Anonymous

    Whatever, you do US multinational corporations, even headed by nominal patriots like George Bush Junior, Harken oil, headquartered in  Cayman Islands,  Dick Cheney, Haliburton in Dubai, or Rupert Murdoch, American citizen owner of News Corp and Fox News 152 subsidaries in offshore tax havens,  are not going to pay any corporate taxes in the US, if they can help it, just as they won´t serve in the forces if they can help it?They are looking for refunds and corporate welfare!

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

      Mr. Crickmore,

      I don’t think you “get it.”  Most small businesses are “S” Corps or LLC’s – they are flow through tax entities and the owners pay the tax at their personal rates.  On top of that, we pay 15% “self employment” tax on our LLC income – that’s the payroll tax of which you spoke.  If your business is growing (rare in President Obama’s America) and you need to buy more than replacement inventory, you pay for that with after tax money.  What do you do for a living that you don’t know this?

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Texas Accountant,

        Be careful what you ask.  You may get way more information than you want, and visuals that may haunt you for years…

  • Anonymous

    Taxes aren´t my strong suit but . I would have thought the Bush administration tax cuts, followed by more tax cuts  would have done that already; lowered taxes for small businesses, but  then Bush seemed more interested in just lowering taxes for the wealthy, on those who weren´t necessarily reinvesting or trying to grow their  small business per se. Economists have said that reducing taxes on the wealthy are not per dollar, an effective way of growing the economy, given how much revenue we lose.

    Everybody has their own opinion but  to see how we got into this debt crisis read from a budgetary surplus.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

    Mr. Crickmore,

    Your statement, “Economists have said that reducing taxes on the wealthy are not per
    dollar, an effective way of growing the economy, given how much revenue
    we lose.”

    Who loses the revenue when we get to keep more of our money?  And how does this hamper the growth of the economy?  Since the current tax rates were passed by a Democratically controlled congress and signed into law by a Democratic President, they are now the “Obama Tax Cuts.”  If you want to call them the “Obama Tax Rates,” I’m OK with that.

  • Anonymous

    Naturally, we get to keep more of own money, even though the value of the US dollar is less, with more borrowing less revenue.That was last year, Obama tax cuts- a moratorium of one year for those earning  over two hundred thousand as I recall.How does this hamper the growth of the economy? It just means the government has to borrow more, to pay its responsibilities, more interest on the debt, which is what 12% of the federal budget now.Eventually we might go down the trajectory of  Greece Its citizens work hard, they have lots of benefits, but there is gross dereliction of paying taxes.

  • Anonymous

    The other point, the rich don.t necessaritly spend their extra earned money in the economy. They just save it,This is what economists talk about. It is not circulated in the economy as much as would be if poorer people had it or the government,Hey, Im not denying that it is their money to do with what.ever they want, but this is what economists tell us

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE