The Fiscal cliff

[z31maniac]

Of course you're going to do you're usual and pop in and post while unable to remain in a thread and make a real point (a rarity for you).
Whether you like it or not this is an increase on taxes for most of the country on their incomes which they haven't seen in two years. Let alone the taxes that were increased on investments, death tax and upper wage earners and we now have a recipe for trouble.

Even Obama was fighting to keep the payroll holiday in place. What they should have done was make it permanent.

No, you can't understand the difference between supply/demand side stimulation.

So there is really no point to engage you, other than to laugh.

[rwh11385]

Not at all. Their also talking about long and short term. In the short term it does nothing and that's the point. You're trying to wave a magic wand over the issue. As if tax rates on income are the same on income takers (20% being the same as 35%). As if lowering them at all would be Keynesian. That's nonsense.
As much as you might hate it Conservatives do support low taxes on individuals as well.
Fox news isn't the only business news source concerned about the tax hikes and the effects they might have on this economy.

*They're* also talking about long and short term, but said that payroll taxes holiday is based on Keynesian theory and for the naive.

I'm not trying to wave a magic wand over the issue, I'm apparently trying to pick up where your teachers fell short.

You have some notion that conservatives liked the payroll tax cut and I'm not sure where you get this misunderstanding besides complete and utter ignorance and being too simple to know the difference.

Let me repeat these quotes:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/21/taxes-2013-163m-workers/1647251/

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., disparaged the payroll tax cut, calling it "sugar-high economics" that wouldn't promote long-term growth.

Politicians from both parties say they are concerned that it threatens the independent revenue stream that funds Social Security.

They are backed by powerful advocates for seniors, including AARP, who adamantly oppose any extension.

"The payroll tax holiday was intended to be temporary and there is strong bipartisan support to let that tax provision expire," said Sen. Orrin of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "The continued extension of a temporary payroll tax holiday has serious long-term implications for Social Security and, frankly, it's not even clear that it has helped to boost our ailing economy."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2012/03/06/mitt-romney-is-no-keynesian/

The crucial difference between supply-side and Keynesian tax cuts is one of design. Supply-side tax cuts occur at the marginal rates of the income tax, whereas Keynesian tax cuts occur before those rates. Under a regimen of marginal rate cuts, the most remunerative thing to do is earn more income. Under non-marginal cuts, you get the full amount of the cut no matter if you work more or not.

Moreover, if marginal tax rates are high, and you get a non-marginal cut, you might even decide to work less than before. A non-marginal tax cut increases your income beyond what you’d been making in the past. If your last bit of work is barely paying — say taxed at 1980’s marginal rate of 70% — you can cut back on work and still see the same take-home pay as before.

It’s clear what makes a tax cut supply-side or Keynesian. Supply-side tax cuts prompt people to envision more income and thus go for earning it. Demand-side tax cuts increase paychecks without encouraging more work and production.

Here’s the president on his kind of tax cuts, referring to the recent reduction in the social security levy: “It means $40 extra in their paycheck. And that $40 helps to pay the rent, the groceries, the rising cost of gas — which is on a lot of people’s minds right now. LaRonda Hill — right here — told us how $40 covers the water bill for a month. So this tax cut makes a difference for a lot of families.”

Obviously the Keynesian variety. The president sees tax cuts — demand-side ones — as a sort of welfare program, whereas Romney sees tax cuts — supply-side ones — as a spur to economic growth.

Do you not know how to read?

[rwh11385]

It isn't Keynesian...lol. You keep thinking that.
It's already insolvent. Do you think your boy racking up a debt of 6.5 trillion in 4 years is helping SS become solvent? How about him making no cuts and adding to the current debt instead?

My boy? You simple troll, I didn't vote for Obama. But that doesn't mean I agree with your utter stupidity when it comes to your clueless argument. And you simply don't understand that general spending cuts won't change social security's financials... it is in a separate trust...

A key fact that you apparently are not aware of is that while cutting MARGINAL tax rates in the '80s, Reagan INCREASED PAYROLL tax rates to try to make Social Security solvent. [1983]

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/oasdiRates.html

More facts: Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated loop holes and raised capital gains tax rates. It raised the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent from 20 percent. Before it, consumer interest was also deductible - so you paid lower taxes for carrying credit card debt, etc. Reagan didn't see all taxes as being the same, so why do you?

If you are uneducated, you might be angry about something you are clueless on. But maybe try to learn something for once and realize that you are upset about something you are are ignorant about, and attacking me for holding the conservative opinion while foolishly calling me a liberal for it.


It would be better to not rob social security or use deficits to give people non-marginal tax rate cuts, and then reduce deductions for debt on a house to be able to lower marginal rates across the board. The deductions are social engineering that unfairly provide benefits (why should people who buy a house in cash, or take a 15 year mortgage, benefit less and pay more taxes than someone who buys a house they likely cannot afford?) and without them, the government can afford lower marginal tax rates that actually improve economic growth. (like in the 80s... which is the basis for Republican ideals on supply-side economics, but apparently you don't actually understand)

[rwh11385]

Maybe you can't read, so here's Paul Ryan calling the payroll tax cut Keynesian and saying that no one wants it to be permanent.



But maybe you can prove the guy who was behind the conservative's budget plan wasn't right or he's not a conservative.

[joshh]

No, you can't understand the difference between supply/demand side stimulation.

So there is really no point to engage you, other than to laugh.

I understand it just fine. What's funny is your basic lack of understanding that real Americans are getting less money in their pay checks every week. Kind of funny how that doesn't match the argument you and Rwh are spewing.

Maybe you can't read, so here's Paul Ryan calling the payroll tax cut Keynesian and saying that no one wants it to be permanent.





But maybe you can prove the guy who was behind the conservative's budget plan wasn't right or he's not a conservative.

The only argument you have here is the SS one. But even that is a bad one because it's dying. Allowing Americans to go home with more of their own pay checks is exactly what Conservatives should be calling for. But the people in Congress have to protect the social welfare programs that are taking this country down.

You're trying to make an argument that non-marginal rate cuts (at all) would make it so workers would be able to work less and still make the same amount of money, but guess what. That's not what happened. You're using a generic template that any cut at all would do this. That's your failure. Now Americans will have less real money in their pockets. Yes that does matter.

[rwh11385]

I understand it just fine. What's funny is your basic lack of understanding that real Americans are getting less money in their pay checks every week. Kind of funny how that doesn't match the argument you and Rwh are spewing.

No. You don't understand anything and apparently are incapable of reading or even understanding Paul Ryan after watching the video.

The "getting less money in their paychecks every week" is a Keynesian / demand-side approach.
Supply-side approach is to lower the marginal tax rate to encourage workers to work more.

The only argument you have here is the SS one. But even that is a bad one because it's dying. Allowing Americans to go home with more of their own pay checks is exactly what Conservatives should be calling for. But the people in Congress have to protect the social welfare programs that are taking this country down.

You're trying to make an argument that non-marginal rate cuts (at all) would make it so workers would be able to work less and still make the same amount of money, but guess what. That's not what happened. You're using a generic template that any cut at all would do this. That's your failure.

That is what the argument is about. Payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax cut was for OASDI / social security. Do you not even know that basic fact??
The 2% in question:

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/2012-social-security-tax-rate-and-maximum-taxable-earnings

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

What was the effect of the payroll tax holiday on the next dollar earned by someone making $110,100????
What would be the effect of a marginal tax rate cut on the same person?


No. Allowing Americans to go home with more from their paychecks from a non-marginal tax cut is NOT what supply-siders / Conservatives are about. Like the Heritage piece said, they cost money so ought to be worth it. Non-marginal tax cuts do not encourage people to work more like marginal tax cuts do. How is it possible for you to not be able to understand this even now? Conservatives would rather make cuts for marginal rates which encourage economic growth through supply-side mechanisms. And they certainly don't think they should bankrupt Social Security or run deficits in order to keep up a temporary Keynesian approach.

You keep failing and what is sad is that you are completely incapable of understanding that you have been wrong. I wish you were intelligent enough to get that, but the endless sources to back my claims are lost on you. Paul Ryan clearly refers to the payroll tax cut as Keynesian and demand-side and thinks it would be horrible to be permanent. Why you want to argue that conservatives want the opposite of what he said is ridiculous and based on nothing but your absolute ignorance.

You have simplified the concept of tax cuts too much and fail to actually understand what anything you are attempting to talk about means.

[joshh]

I already repeated your nonsense. Showing that I understand what you're saying and already did so calm down...oh yeah your the king of hyperbole.
What you continue to fail to understand is you're using a mold that does not match what actually happened over the last two years. I don't give a fuck who says what. Americans *had* more money in their pockets last year and now that was taken from them proving that in fact the idea that allowing Americans more money from non-marginal tax cuts is pointless is fallacious.

[rwh11385]

I already repeated your nonsense. Showing that I understand what you're saying and already did so calm down...oh yeah your the king of hyperbole.
What you continue to fail to understand is you're using a mold that does not match what actually happened over the last two years. I don't give a fuck who says what. Americans *had* more money in their pockets last year and now that was taken from them proving that in fact the idea that allowing Americans more money from non-marginal tax cuts is pointless is fallacious.

Actually, all you have shown is you have no comprehension of any of the topics being discussed.

So wait, now you are arguing that the basis of conservative economic thought is wrong? Based on what exactly? Your loony score just went up even more.

So you don't care what the author of the conservative budget plan says? You know better than Paul Ryan what conservatives want or think? HA!

What proof do you have that running a deficit in order to give someone a temporary non-marginal tax cut does anything to help and that it isn't a pointless act based on failed Keynesianism? On what basis do you propose that such a tax holiday is a good thing when it is funded by deficits?


The fact that you have gotten some basic concepts about the tax holiday wrong is funny. [That the argument is about something other than social security or that government spending cuts have to do with the financial position of social security] But moreso you challenging the premise of conservative fiscal thought and saying you know more about what conservatives want from economic policy is HILARIOUS. Keep digging your hole deeper. As Z31 said, it provides many laughs.

[joshh]

And Bush handing out tax credit checks is also conservative as well right (that's called Republican)....but then I'm talking to a guy that will use Heritage for and against them when he needs to.
While at the same time reads Media Matters links and refuses to read Fox news...go figure.

[z31maniac]

Bush was a Lib in war Mongers clothes.

[joshh]

No, you can't understand the difference between supply/demand side stimulation.

So there is really no point to engage you, other than to laugh.

Of course not...but if I said I supported (or would support) the same tax cut for Americans that made above middle class incomes. Demand side now?

[joshh]

Bush was a Lib in war Mongers clothes.

I agree with that but my point is most Republicans are liberals/progressives these days.

[rwh11385]

And Bush handing out tax credit checks is also conservative as well right (that's called Republican)....but then I'm talking to a guy that will use Heritage for and against them when he needs to.
While at the same time reads Media Matters links and refuses to read Fox news...go figure.

No, that was Keynesian as well. As I mentioned... Or can you not read?

The Making Work Pay credit wasn't much different from the Bush Economic Stimulus Package which gave everyone $600. And the Making Work Pay credit was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [aka $831 billion Stimulus] http://www.irs.gov/uac/The-Making-Work-Pay-Tax-Credit

And it's all Keynesian. Only at least the stimulus checks took from the government's income tax revenues, instead of making the future situation of social security even more troubling. It's kinda like not wanting to add to the deficit problem by robbing from the future retiree's fund.

Remember how he ran up massive deficits? And remember the conservative objection to the Stimulus package that Obama had - with Making Work Pay credit? Bush acted against the conservative grain, mostly because he was like you. He thought he knew better than the economists and made up his own conclusions. Your mistake was to assume that it was a good conservative move because he did it without support from his ignorant arrogance.

Bush IGNORED the advice of the people around him:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/09/17/Bush-Tax-Cuts-No-Economic-Help.aspx#page1

Bush’s economic advisers tried to talk him out of the rebate, but ran into a brick wall.

No Reaganites praised the Bush plan; all favored something much bolder, such as the flat tax proposal that was being promoted by publisher Steve Forbes, who was challenging Bush for the Republican nomination. Rather than defend his proposal as one that would increase growth, Bush argued that its main purpose was simply to deplete the budget surplus, which had grown under President Bill Clinton to $126 billion in 1999. Surpluses were dangerous, Bush and his advisers repeatedly warned, because Congress might spend them.

Well, he certainly took care of that surplus and moved us away from the healthy debt/gdp ratio that the 90s gave us!

Subsequent analysis showed that the rebate had virtually no stimulative effect, exactly as economic theory predicted. By and large, people saved the rebate rather than spend it. And the saving didn’t even do any good because the deficit, which is negative saving, increased by the same amount. In any case, the economy continued to deteriorate and unemployment rose sharply despite the tax cut.

It’s hard even to find Republican economists who will defend Bush’s policies.

Like you, apparently trying to convince Bush of something was like talking to a brick wall.

http://www.esquire.com/features/what-bush-meant-1008

He was convinced, he told Bush, that the president's position would soon enough be seen as "bad policy."

This, it seems, was the wrong thing to say to the president.

According to senior administration officials who learned of the encounter soon after it happened, President Bush looked at the man. "I don't ever want to hear you use those words in my presence again," he said.

"What words, Mr. President?"

"Bad policy," President Bush said. "If I decide to do it, by definition it's good policy. I thought you got that."

The adviser was dismissed. The meeting was over.

I generally like Heritage, they are good at gathering facts. Sometimes their stuff is too biased and catering to a conclusion that their donors want... but in this case where we are arguing about what conservatives think and want then it is perfectly factual at demonstrating that. I posted one mediamatters link and it was an aggregation of other not-so-biased sources. Or did you not read the link? The stupid argument in your post is focusing on me using multiple sources to provide information while you have none. I read fox news sometimes but question it because it is too biased and for people who don't want to or incapable to think for themselves, just like MSNBC. WSJ is a MUCH better source as it is intended for a more educated audience.

But even Fox News supports my take: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...l-tax-holiday/

"The problem here is that the payroll tax doesn't go into general revenue, it supports Social Security. And you can't keep extending the payroll tax holiday and have a secure Social Security."

Let's get back to the fact that you don't care what the writer of the conservative budget plan says about taxes and think you know better than him what conservatives think or want. Or that you are completely ignorant of what Keynesian means, that social security has a trust separate from general government revenue, that Reagan raised the payroll tax rates to save social security and raised capital gains taxes to afford lower marginal tax rates, that the majority of politicians wanted the holiday to end. (A lot probably because the ever-reliably-voting elderly and AARP wanted it to end) But you continue to cry over it and somehow call me a liberal for not believing it was a good thing because the wealth of economic history doesn't support your conclusion. I carry the conservative philosophy about marginal tax rates and supply-side, even though you argue I'm wrong and must love Obama because of sharing the same conclusion as Raul Ryan...

[rwh11385]

Of course not...but if I said I supported (or would support) the same tax cut for Americans that made above middle class incomes. Demand side now?

Maybe you should realize that "job creators" class didn't really benefit greatly from the payroll tax cut. (Rather someone who made $200K got the same benefit as someone who made $110,100) Which would be a basic fact of the topic that you are ignorant of.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...fin_99010.html

To stimulate GDP growth, a tax cut has to cut the marginal tax rates upon which the decision makers in the economy base their decisions to work and, above all, to invest. Because the Social Security tax applies only to wage income, and then only up to a "cap" of $106,800/year, this tax does not have a significant impact upon the decisions that drive the economy. Accordingly, cutting the Social Security tax would be expected to produce no benefit, and the 1Q2011 GDP numbers show that no benefit is exactly what this tax cut produced. Interestingly enough, in opinion polls taken at the time that the tax bill was passed, the only element of the package that the public did not support was the Social Security tax cut.

That is what the argument is about. Payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax cut was for OASDI / social security. Do you not even know that basic fact??
The 2% in question:

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/2012-social-security-tax-rate-and-maximum-taxable-earnings

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

What was the effect of the payroll tax holiday on the next dollar earned by someone making $110,100????
What would be the effect of a marginal tax rate cut on the same person?

It's hard to lower the payroll tax rate on wages earned above $110,100 when they were 0% to start with. On the other hand, MARGINAL tax rate cut would create an incentive to work and earn more.

[joshh]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010713-639637-reelected-obama-immediately-raises-middle-class-taxes.htm?src=IBDDAE

Tough shit.