Bill Gross Predicts Liberal U.S. Budget Bankruptcy

or maybe we could just return our tax code to the 90's. It's like the rich aren't satisfied owning half of the US assets. Now that the lobbyists have managed to give them the lowest tax rate since the robber barons were alive, they'd like for the middle class to get an ever-diminishing return from the government.
I'm old enough to remember the hilarious lie of trickle-down economics; I'm glad we have graduated to concentrate the wealth at the top. So much more honest.

Nearly half of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes.

So much for maly's ideas . . .

you know what? everyone should pay income tax (though poor folks should pay very little). the government is going to need more revenue. taxes on rich people have to go up a lot, taxes on the middle class and the poor have to go up a little. it's just reality. now may not be time to raise taxes, since the recovery is still shaky, but over the medium-term we are going to have to return to reasonable tax rates that provide the revenue we need.

LICC, exactly; the working poor aren't going to pay for all the fancy gold toilets in Iraq; that why the top tax rates need to go back up. Once hedgefunders, millionaires and huge corporations start paying taxes again, maybe the deficit won't be so bad.

How much more do you want high income people to pay? 70%? 90%?

The problem is too much government spending and too big government.

People making between $40k-$60k per year pay on average 3% in federal income taxes.

I said back to the 90's: 39.6%. The problem is not just too much spending (although the extra trillion dollars for Cheney's excellent adventures didn't help), but the Bush tax cuts, plus the refusal to allow Medicare to negotiate drup prices. Cutting Social Security makes as much sense as invading Iraq after 9/11. Just increase the limit from $107,000, problem solved.

maly wants to tax and spend into economic growth. Sorry, that never worked.

Actually, i'd like for tax and cut to fiscal sanity, and I appear to be in the very tiny minority of people who can count. We can't balance the budget, never mind pay back the debt a bit, without increasing our taxes.
Lower the corporate tax rate, and create a corporate AMT, so that Exxon and GE can't have billions of profits and pay no taxes; increase capital gain taxes to 28%; increase the top marginal tax rate back to 39.6%; break up oligopolies so we move back to free market principles; allow the government to negotiate with drug companies; get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, cut off all the well-connected welfare billionaires from the DOD trough. We'll have so much money we can provide cheap higher education again.

"Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time They've Been Praising Reagan"

"Wait, you're telling me Reagan advocated that trickle-down nonsense that was debunked years ago? That was Reagan?" Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said upon hearing of the mistake. "I can't believe I've been calling for a return to Reagan's America. I feel like an asshole."

According to sources, millions of younger Republicans have spent most of their lives viewing Reagan a stalwart of conservative principles, and many were "horrified" to learn that the former president illegally sold weapons to Iran, declared amnesty for 2.9 million illegal immigrants, costarred in a movie with a chimpanzee, funneled aid to Islamic militants in Afghanistan, and suffered from severe mental problems.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/embarrassed-republicans-admit-theyve-been-thinking,19248/

"Nearly half of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes. "

Epic fail. The entitlements you refer to in TOP are, in fact, paid for by 100% of workers - EVERYONE who works, just about, pays PAYROLL taxes for medicare, medicaid, unemployment, and SS.

Indeed, SS is a REGRESSIVE tax.

Secondly, Gross has REPEATEDLY said that BOTH parties are EQUALLY at fault for not credibly tackling this issue. He has NOT said this is a "liberal" problem.

Epic. Fail.

"Nearly half of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes."

So you think they should py income taxes?

FYI: 75% of those who don't pay federal income taxes make under $20k a year.

LICC: I have a simple challenge for you. I want you to look at this chart of stock market performance under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and tell me which president is anti business:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/31/962053/-Just-the-facts,-please:-Stock-performance-under-Clinton,-Bush,-and-Obama

Class, can you tell me which president is anti business? I know all of you are eager to anser, so raise your hand.

Today there was a Tea Party in D.C. to protest govt. spending. Only 3 dozen people showed up. Seriously.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/31/961938/-Fox-blames-weather-for-weak-turnout-at-tea-party-rally

39.6% & nys + nyc= ???

LICC -- When you say "liberal" US budget, you are referring to W's liberal spending of the Clinton surplus, right?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/budget-deficit.html

Because Bush the moron put us in a deficit position by starting wars he couldn't pay for and otherwise horribly mismanaging the economy.

jason- you need to try to think a little before you comment.

I said almost half of U.S. households pay no federal INCOME taxes. That is an absolutely true statement.

And I didn't say the Democrat budget is at fault. I said LIBERAL policies are at fault. Yes, Bush's liberal spending shares the blame, and Obama has taken those bad spending policies and doubled them.

I don't get how when someone criticizes Obama as being too liberal, liberals point to Bush. Yes, Obama and Bush are both bad when it comes to government spending policies.

Yes, more people should pay federal income taxes. When nearly half the country doesn't pay anything, it gives them no incentive to demand efficient government.

Socialist, you can keep begging for your handouts all you want, but that kind of approach has failed over and over again.

Midtowner- so you are against the military action that Obama is taking in Libya? You are against Obama's military policies in Afghanistan?

Socialist- you have no clue when it comes to understanding financial markets. Clinton entered office with the economy growing and he left it in the beginning of a recession. You somehow are blaming the tech bubble burst on Bush's policies? There you go into your fantasy world again.

"39.6% & nys + nyc= ???"

50%?

However did people in the 90s survive? I'm surprised there wasn't a famine.

This discussion of whether or not poor people pay any income taxes is stupid. First, it's mostly the result of the earned income tax credit, which was passed under the Ford administration, expanded by Reagan, and Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. So, mostly Republicans. Why did they do this? Because it encourages people to work instead of trying to live on welfare, and in some cases the federal government comes out ahead because Social Security and Medicare taxes more than offset the amount of the credit. The idea of discontinuing one of our best incentives to encourage people to work (and improve our economy) seems pretty stupid.

Second, the percent of people that didn't pay any taxes in recent years is significantly inflated by short-lived/one-time stimulus credits. Under steady state tax policy the number would be much lower.

Third, as other folks have pointed out, there's plenty of regressive taxes that these folks do pay.

Finally, even if we made these people pay tons of taxes, it wouldn't help very much. The bottom 50% earns less than 13% of AGI (well less than what the top 1% earns). So you'd have to increase their tax rates rather more than the 4.6% proposed at the top tax bracket in order to generate the same income.

Having said all of that, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that there should be some shared sacrifice in fixing the budget. Maybe it would make sense to do something like leave this year's lower FICA rate in place while returning the cap on tax paid to 2010 levels to make it more regressive while phasing out some of the non EITC credits that people in lower income brackets tend to claim. That might net out to roughly the same payment for a lot of people, but make them feel a bit more connected to income tax policy.

LICC you throw around this word liberal, clearly have no idea what it means, and then apply it to anyone who does anything you disagree with. Then, you purposely conflate different things to make your argument. First you say that large percentages of workers don't pay federal income tax, which is true. Them you say they don't pay "anything," which means they have no incentive to demand efficient government. That is obviously false. You know full well that anyone who works pays an array of state, local, and federal taxes.

You think taxes should be lower and spending should be lower. Fine. I disagree. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Jordyn, I mostly agree with you, but in light of the fact that wages are lower now for the bottom half of the US population than in 1970, asking them to share the sacrifice is outrageous, a sort of "let them eat cake" in the style of Marie-Antoinette. I think the top 1% of the US, which has seen their share of the wealth go from 33% to 50% in the same time, just as top income tax rate went from 70% down to 35%, are the ones who could afford to pay for what made them rich: bank bailouts, corporate tax loopholes and half-tax on capital gains.

maly,

i think the point is this: since rich folks have nearly all the income and wealth, they are going to have to suffer the largest increase in taxes. obama has already started down this road with the healthcare reform, which includes significant new taxes on the rich, and a large new subsidy for poor folks. but as the recovery picks up more will have to happen. still, i think it's fair to say that everyone is going to feel the pain, whether in the form of reduced government services or increased taxes. if i had my way, i'd let poor and working poor people off the hook entirely, but the grand compromise that will be requires is going to take a bite out of everyone.

the one thing i disagree with: you say that we can save money if we "get out of iraq and afghanistan." that is exactly what we are doing: the war in iraq is over (for us at least; there is still violence among iraqis but no one is shooting at americans) and the occupying force keeps coming down. afghanistan is a horrible mess, but we are starting to draw down troops there as well. both of those wars were botched entirely, and the iraq war was a mistake to begin with, but that doesn't make it easy or simple to extricate ourselves. i think the president is doing a pretty darn good job of setting up a workable exit.

The main reason I mention shared sacrifice is because it seems increasingly like we're heading in the direction of bread and circuses. Politicians aren't willing to make hard decisions, ever, because voters reward politicians who tell them they can have low taxes and lots of services, as evidenced in ridiculous fashion by the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" Tea Party signs. This is all obviously ridiculous, and even though I agree that the very rich have made tremendous gains in recent years (often at the expense of the reset of society) we need everyone to have some stake in tax policy in order to (hopefully!) make good decisions.

what stake do people who make 300K a year have in tax policy? what can they realistically do to influence taxes?

ummm, are you serious? they can make political donations, they can support organizations that lobby on tax policy, they can vote (everyone can at least do that).

cc, a lot more than people who make 30K, and a whole lot less than people who make $3M. That much can be deduced from the end results: the people who truly decide are the princes at hedge funds, Goldman Sachs, GE, Exxon and assorted Fortune 500 companies. How else would it make sense that someone making 100K pays 40% in various taxes and schemes, while someone who makes $30M pays less than 20%? Or that a wildly profitable company like GE could make billions in profit, get $3bn in tax breaks and pay 0 taxes, while a Dunkin Donuts franchisee pay 30%+ of net profits?
The very idea of those wolves "sharing the sacrifice" with the sheep is laughable; what it really means is that they'll eat only one of your lambs today. They're cutting down, and so are you.

Glad your such a fan of Bill Gross LICC. I guess you missed this snippet yesterday:

31 Mar 2011 Mohamed El-Erian: Bring On The Taxes
According to the PIMCO CEO: “Bill [Gross] and I–we do not consider ourselves elite. In fact, we’d like to be taxed more. I said this even before the Middle East started: It is not in the interest of any society for income inequality to keep on going up. It is in everybody’s interest to avoid the extremes.”

i voted but of course it turned out that the guy i voted for didn't follow through (or wasn't able) on the tax policy he espoused.

and to my mind your first two suggestions simply provide support to a system of influence peddling that is not appropriate regardless of your politics.

Liberals can try to distort facts all you want, it doesn't change things. Almost half of the households in this country pay no federal income tax. Fact. This doesn't mean I think that someone making under $20k a year should have to pay. But someone in the 40th percentile of income in this country should have to pay federal income taxes. You have almost half the country with no incentive to favor limited or efficient government services. You can't point to social security to justify the uneven tax code. Social security is supposed to be dedicated and everyone gets their benefits from what they paid. It is not for funding federal government operations.

If you want to address uneven income distribution, you should favor measures to increase productivity of more people. But the country should support the principle of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Trying to use liberal socialist programs to equalize outcome only leads to failure for more people. High income people pay more as a percentage of taxes than the percentage of earnings.

In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income. The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes. (Source- The Tax Foundation.)

Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted. . . .

It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group. The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.

- Stephen Moore

LICC,

Obviously we don't have equality of opportunity when we have children living in poverty, without access to quality healthcare or education or even nutrition. I do support policies that provide for a greater equality of opportunity. Probably the biggest of those is a more equal distribution of wealth so that some people don't get an enormous head start in life.

Your logic, by the way, seems somewhat flawed. "The gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007 (the period for which these data are available), according to data the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued last week."

That is the definition of falling behind. Even if middle incomes are growing, if they are growing more slowly than top incomes, that means the middle class are...falling behind! You apparently don't understand your own metaphor.

"If you want to address uneven income distribution, you should favor measures to increase productivity of more people".

LICComment : This statement detracts a lot from the credibility of your argument. Everyone's productivity *has* gone up, they're just not being paid more for it:

http://gulzar05.blogspot.com/2011/02/widening-income-productivity-growth-gap.html

"Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent."

You're saying that as if it's an argument in your favor?!?!? That median wage growth has been less than half a percent per year.

Also, read the last sentence of that post you read. Even someone who is making the argument that the rich/poor gap isn't that bad acknowledges that the reason many people don't pay taxes is the EITC, and that the EITC is an efficient poverty-abatement program.

"Yes, more people should pay federal income taxes. When nearly half the country doesn't pay anything, it gives them no incentive to demand efficient government."

Well, you know what, screw you. I would not be bashing poor peopel since you could very well become one of them the next time the rich people you defend so muh destory the economy. Weeeeeeee. You know what that sound is? That's the sound of LIC real estate falling.

Cn you beleive LIC? He defends rich people, but he is not even close to being rich himself!

So LICC wants poor people to pay taxes not because he cares about the deficit, but because he wants them to have an incentive to share his political beliefs of "limited government." In other words, he just wants to engage in sleazy politicis.

happyrenter, you are full of contradictions. You want to increase equality of opportunity by redistributing "wealth" (now you changed the discussion from income to wealth), and you don't see how nonsensical that is. Middle incomes growing to you is "falling behind", and you don't see the contradiction. You have this view that there are a group of people who were born with high incomes and just magically keep having them, and others with no control over their earnings ability who need government to keep them close to the higher income crowd. This is fantasy.

jordyn, the 17 percent is in real terms, not nominal.

I didn't say I was against the EITC, but I am against it if it applies to the 40th percentile of income earners. I don't consider someone in the 40th percentile to be a "poor person." But liberals like Socialist believe that anyone not rich is poor and therefore deserve handouts.

"I said almost half of U.S. households pay no federal INCOME taxes. That is an absolutely true statement."

I KNOW you said that, dummy. But Bill Gross and YOU both said it's ENTITLEMENTS that will endanger the budget - and ENTITLEMENT programs tax EVERYONE, and in aggregate the poor MORE as a percent of income than the wealthy. Since payroll taxes are what pay for what is allegedly the problem, talking about income tax is a non-sequiter.

....and all your stats on taxes paid refer to JUST FEDERAL income taxes. if you look at TOTAL taxes paid - Federal, state, and local income, property, sales, energy, and excise taxes, plus useage fees like tolls, etc, we have a flat-to-slightly REGRESSIVE tax system. In other words, including ALL taxes paid, the typical lower-middle class person pays the same or even a higher percentage of their income in some form of tax than do the wealthiest 1%.

Read my post above. Even including payroll taxes the highest income earners pay for more of a percentage of taxes than percentage of earnings.

And liberals don't want to make the required changes to social security to fix it. They just want to keep killing businesses and jobs with more taxes to keep getting their handouts no matter what.

jason, I assume you just didn't read this, rather than you couldn't understand it:

It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group. The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent.

jason, that means you can't make up your own conclusions that contradict the facts. Sorry.

licc. if you run a marathon, and you run at 8 miles per hour, you move forward. but if someone else runs at 9 miles per your, you FALL BEHIND. are you really so dense that you are incapable of understanding your own metaphor?

yes: you create equality of opportunity by a more equal distribution of wealth and power. if some people are raised with every possible advantage and others with nothing--not even decent healthcare and education--how do they have equal opportunity?

you either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are so blindly ideological that it's pointless to talk to you.

hr, you need a course in logic. If I run at 8mph and you run at 12, and you work out and get more fit and increase to 15 while I work out but only increase to 9, I'm still better off compared to where I was. My marathon time is better regardless of what you do.

Achieving income isn't a race to the finish line.

Redistributing earned income is a path to equal outcome. Yes, some people are born to more responsible parents who give their children a better environment to succeed. Why should government handouts be the answer?? Sorry, your argument fails.

you may be better off, in absolute terms, than you were before, but you are also falling behind. that's the point of the metaphor. do you really not understand that? if i run faster than you are, and you start to speed up, but i start to speed up more, you still fall farther behind. wow. i'm not explaining it again.

But we are not racing for a pot of gold and the first one there wins. How can you not understand this??

CEO pay soars while workers' pay stalls

CEOs didn’t have to cry poor for long.

The heads of the nation’s top companies got the biggest raises in recent memory last year after taking a hiatus during the recession.

At a time most employees can barely remember their last substantial raise, median CEO pay jumped 27% in 2010 as the executives’ compensation started working its way back to prerecession levels, a USA TODAY analysis of data from GovernanceMetrics International found. Workers in private industry, meanwhile, saw their compensation grow just 2.1% in the 12 months ended December 2010, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Two years of scaling back amid tough economic times proved temporary as three-quarters of CEOs got raises in 2010 — and, in many cases, the increases were substantial.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2011-03-31-ceo-pay-2010.htm

I feel bad for Wisconsin Rep. Sean Duffy. He makes $174,000 a year, but is barely surviving. In fact, because of all the evil liberal poicies bankruptig America, he has to drive a used minivan. According to him, he "struggles" to pay his bills every month. I feel bad for him. Maybe we can cut hsi taxes. Right LICC?

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/118874654.html

If anyone wants to help Rep. Duffy, there is a food and clothes dry for him. French shirts and caviar are desperately needed.

http://d21971ua898zk6.cloudfront.net/39/5a/e/789/poorseanduffy.pdf

hr, your answer is to make the faster runner stop and pick up the slower runner and carry him so they can both hit the finish line at the same time, instead of trying to improve the slower runner's speed and time.

"jason, that means you can't make up your own conclusions that contradict the facts. Sorry."

I am sorry you are such an idiot, liar, or both. I mentioned STATE, LOCAL, and Federal taxes OF ALL KIND. If you include Federal, state, and local income, property, sales, energy, and excise taxes, plus useage fees like tolls, etc, we have a flat-to-slightly REGRESSIVE tax system. In other words, including ALL taxes paid, the typical lower-middle class person pays the same or even a higher percentage of their income in some form of tax than do the wealthiest 1%.

You have merely discussed Federal Income taxes. This is not the only kind of tax people pay.

You need to read more carefully. I posted information about federal income AND payroll taxes.

State and local income taxes are also progressive in NY. Property taxes are generally higher based on the value of the property.

Higher income people will generally buy higher priced goods and thus pay more sales taxes.

You have no factual support for your statements. You should give up while you're behind.

LICC,

If that's what you are trying to say then find another metaphor. Falling behind means falling behind means falling behind. There's no other meaning. And the middle class is very surely falling behind the rich.

"jordyn, the 17 percent is in real terms, not nominal."

I know, but it's over *24 years*! That's a growth rate of less than half a percent per year. Do you seriously expect people to be excited by that, in an environment where productivity increases are > 2% per year?

Basically, rich people are getting rich on the back of everyone else's productivity gains. It's not like the rich dude is training harder and running faster than everyone else; it's that the rich guy gets pushed around on a chariot by people who then have to walk the rest of the race because they're so tired.

Also, LICComment: You have indeed correctly identified that our tax system is generally progressive. There's a reason for that called marginal utility, and a strong argument to be made that our system is generally not progressive enough.

jordyn, I don't see the logic in your statements. Productivity has increased due to technological advancements. Those advancements have also made things cheaper.

And the point isn't that we shouldn't do anything about uneven income distribution. The point is that redistribution through increased taxation will only make things worse, not better.

I don't believe you have a strong argument to make the tax system more progressive, not when nearly half the country pays no federal income tax and the highest income persons pay the huge majority of the taxes already.

but we're running a $1.5 trillion deficit. the status quo needs to be changed. taxes need to go up. how much do you think we should raise taxes on a family income of $50K vs $1 million?

"Productivity has increased due to technological advancements. Those advancements have also made things cheaper."

Productivity has increased due to a variety of factors. Technology is certainly one of them. People working harder and more effectively is certainly another, as well, as is people learning how to use technology effectively. In any case, the delta between the productivity gains and the income gains certainly hasn't gone to machines; it's gone to corporations and rich people. Why should they be the only ones that benefit from technological advantages?

"And the point isn't that we shouldn't do anything about uneven income distribution. The point is that redistribution through increased taxation will only make things worse, not better."

Why would it make things worse? That's a soundbite, not an argument. Generally, more progressive tax schemes are associated with better income equality (see, the US in the past, or Europe today). Whether this is just correlation or whether it's causal is perhaps hard to say; I certainly don't see any evidence that progressive tax schemes cause income equality to worsen, though.

"I don't believe you have a strong argument to make the tax system more progressive, not when nearly half the country pays no federal income tax and the highest income persons pay the huge majority of the taxes already"

Both of those factors are irrelevant to marginal utility.

LICC: Guess which year income inequality was at its HIGHEST point in US history? Can you guess which year it was? Well, I am going to tell you. The year was 1928. That's right, 1928 holds the record for the largest gap between the rich and everyone else. And what happened the following year?

Do you know what year income inequality was the second worst in US history? 2006, a year before the Great Recession began. These are all facts, not talking points.

Lots of other countries throughout the world have massive income ineqaulity too. Like Egypt. And Libya. Uh-oh.

LICC, you are a fucktard. I said ALL taxes. You focus on INCOME taxes. ALL fucking taxes, fucktard. Sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes. For all 50 states and territories. You are a fucktard.

"What Does Regressive Tax Mean?
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.
Investopedia Says
Investopedia explains Regressive Tax
Some examples include gas tax and cigarette tax. For example, if a person has $10 of income and must pay $1 of tax on a package of cigarettes, this represents 10% of the person's income. However, if the person has $20 of income, this $1 tax only represents 5% of that person's income.

Sales taxes that apply to essentials are generally considered to be regressive as well because expenses for food, clothing and shelter tend to make up a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget. In this case, even though the tax may be uniform (such as 7% sales tax), lower income consumers are more affected by it because they are less able to afford it. "

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

"Regressive Taxes"

http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/whys_thm03_les02.jsp

"A regressive tax may at first appear to be a fair way of taxing citizens because everyone, regardless of income level, pays the same dollar amount. By taking a closer look, it is easy to see that such a tax causes lower-income people to pay a larger share of their income than wealthier people pay. Though true regressive taxes are not used as income taxes, they are used as taxes on tobacco, alcohol, gasoline, jewelry, perfume, and travel.

User fees often are considered regressive because they take a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups. These include fees for licenses, parking, admission to museums and parks, and tolls for roads, bridges, and tunnels."

http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/whys_thm03_les02.jsp

"Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the
Tax Systems in All 50 States"

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

Read it and weep. In MOST states, state and local taxes are REGRESSIVE. The progressive Federal system is the only thing that makes the overall tax burden roughly flat for the average person. New York has a U shape - regressive for the lowest 60%, flat for the upper-middle 20%, and then progressive for the top 20% again.

But flip through it and its obvious that for 40/50 states, state and local taxes are heavily regressive.

Fucktard.

From the above, fucktard - Total state/local tax burden net of federal offset:
ncome Lowest Second Middle Fourth Top 20%
Group 20% 20% 20% 20% Next 15% Next 4% TOP 1%
TOTAL AFTER OFFSET
9.6% 10.0% 11.6% 11.0% 10.7% 10.8% 7.2%

Notice the very richest in NYS pay a LOWER percentage than everyone else.

From the above, fucktard:

"The 10 Most Regressive Tax States
Ten states — Washington, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Illinois, Arizona,
Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Alabama — are particularly regressive. These ten states ask
their poorest residents — those in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale — to pay
up to six times as much of their income in taxes as they ask the wealthy to pay. Middleincome
families in these states pay up to three times as high a share of their income as the
wealthiest families. (These figures are before the tax benefits the wealthy enjoy from federal
itemized deductions.)"

The report shows that even for the MOST progressive states, NY, CA, etc, the total state/local tax burden is still regressive.

For all 50 states, its highly regressive.

Fucktard.

But Jason, most Americans agree with LICC's low tax, low spend policies.... which is why yesterday's Tea Party in front of Congress attracted TENS of people while a pro union rally in Wisconsin attracted 75,000 people.

jordyn, you are losing credibility. Productivity is increasing because people today are "working harder"?? You really believe that?? You are working harder than your grandparents or harder than people worked 30, 40, 50, 100 years ago? Nonsense.

It is logical that the ones who will gain the most from technological productivity improvements are the ones who own the technology. The way to improve income distribution is through competition and competitive markets. Not through government forcing redistribution of income. That will only retard growth and productivity. Europe may have slightly better income distribution but it also has substantially slower economic growth.

jason can only respond with name-calling and illogical, factually deficient responses. Fail.

"Europe may have slightly better income distribution but it also has substantially slower economic growth."

"Economic growth" is a misleading figure. The U.S. currently has the HIGHEST unemployment rate of all the nations in the G7. So while we have had more "economic growth" than Europe, at the end of the day Europe has LOWER unemployment than the U.S. does (of course this is helped by the fact that it is virtually impossible to lay off workers in Europe due to evil Socialist unions and regulations)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-hiring-lags-even-as-economy-outpaces-rivals/article1965383/print/

Current European Unemployment numbers:

Germany: 7.6%
England: 7.9%
Sweeden: 7.6%
Finland: 8%
Russia: 7.5%
Norway: 3.4%

--------------------

U.S.: 8.8%

So is Europe worse off than the U.S LICC? Is Socialism and wealth re-distribution destroying Europe?

And outside of Europe uenmployment is comparable to Europe:

Australia: 5.1%
Brazil: 5.7%
Canada: 7.8%

CORRECTION;

Germany's unemployment si 6.3%, not 7.6%.

No matter how you look at it, the U.S. is well behind the rest of the indistrialized world in employment. Even the Czech Republic is LOWER than the U.S. at 7.7%. Yes, we were beaten by the CZECH REPUBLIC.

So which countries have COMPARABLE uenmployment numbers as the U.S. does? Venezuela. And SYRIA. No, I am not joking. See below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate#cite_note-eurostat-11

Even the GAZA STRIP has lower unemployment than the U.S. But hey, we beat Iraq and Iran. With those kinds of numbers, the U.S. is in some serious sh*t.

Socialist, you are some combination of ignorant and disengenuous. Why didn't you include the unemployment rates for France, Greece, Spain, etc.?

http://www.newsneconomics.com/2010/01/unemployment-in-europe-its-bad-all-over.html

The Euro area (EA17) seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate was 9.9% in February 2011, compared to 10.0% in January 2011. It was 10.0% in February 2010.
The whole European Union (EU27) unemployment rate was 9.5% in February 2011, compared to 9.6% in January 2011. It was 9.6% in February 2010, according to the latest unemployment figures published today by the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat).

It is also stupid to just look at short-term unemployment. Over time, Europe has significantly higher unemployment than the U.S. Hopefully Obama fails in his attempts to make the U.S. a socialist European like state.

From Floyd Norris at the NY Times:

IN the United States, unemployment has typically been a relatively brief affair. The vast majority of people who lost jobs soon found new work.

That is not the way it has been in many other developed countries. In Europe and Japan, long-term unemployment is far more common. At any given time, most of the unemployed people in many European countries have been out of work for more than six months.

Now the United States appears to be becoming similar to Europe. Even as the overall unemployment rate has begun to drop — falling to 9.5 percent in June from a peak of 10.1 percent last October — the proportion of the work force that has been out of work for more than six months has risen to 4.4 percent, as can be seen in the accompanying charts. . . .

Historically, the differences among countries reflected different safety nets. In some countries, laws made it hard to fire workers, but those who did not already have jobs found little protection.

"It is logical that the ones who will gain the most from technological productivity improvements are the ones who own the technology"

If you look at who's actually getting rich while it's true that the software/computer industry is one of the few places where people are actually earning more money, the vast majority of economic gains have gone to executive management and to people in the financial industry. Considering how great the financial industry has been for the economy in recent years, I'm sure you'll have an excellent reason for why so much of other people's productivity gains have gone into its pockets.

The U.S. unemployment rate is far higher than Europe's if you look at the U6.

"Nearly half of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes."

And at least half of the U.S. persons have below-average intelligence. Allow me to introduce you to LONG ISLAND CITY!

>Allow me to introduce you to LONG ISLAND CITY!

Tell us about it! I recently heard of a bald single man with two cats and two balconies who has merely moved to Hells Kitchen after he and his family were originally from Long Island City. Not much progress, eh?

Hmm. Don't know any such person, huntersburg.

Bill Gross was just on CNBC. Essentially, TOP is full of shit.

First, he said they are out of USTs NOT for fear of deficits but because quantitative easing and Chinese buying are making yields TOO LOW. Therefore he is seeking out higher yielding bonds - he specifically mentioned bonds of Canada, Brazil, and Germany. And other (socialist) countries.

Second, when asked about Paul Ryan's plan, he said it had some good ideas, but was MAJORLY LACKING because it does address what is also needed - increased taxes on corporations and on the rich!!!! Bill went on to say that corporations pay the smallest percent of GDP in taxes ever, while labour pays the highest-ever. This is why, he says, despite decades of productivity gains, corporate profits have gone up and wages have remained stagnate. Raising taxes on tthe rich and on corporations will both raise needed revnue to balance the budget and helping re-balance tax collection sources.

SOCIALISM.

Gross said he liked some Dem AND some GOP ideas. Not at ALL the lies LICC spewed. I am sure the interview will be posted on the site later today.

Liberals just love embarrassing themselves with distorted facts and lack of logic. Here are Bill Gross' exact words, as he posted on Pimco's website:

"•Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security now account for 44% of total federal spending and are steadily rising.
•Previous Congresses (and Administrations) have relied on the assumption that we can grow our way out of this onerous debt burden.
•Unless entitlements are substantially reformed, the U.S. will likely default on its debt; not in conventional ways, but via inflation, currency devaluation and low to negative real interest rates.
. . .
If so, and if the USA were a corporation, then it would probably have a negative net worth of $35-40 trillion once our “assets” were properly accounted for, as pointed out by Mary Meeker and endorsed by luminaries such as Paul Volcker and Michael Bloomberg in a recent piece titled “USA Inc.” However approximate and subjective that number is, no lender would lend to such a corporation. Because if that company had a printing press much like the U.S. with an official “reserve currency” seal of approval affixed to every dollar bill, that lender/saver would have to know that the only way out of the dilemma, absent very large entitlement cuts, is to default in one (or a combination) of four ways: 1) outright via contractual abrogation – surely unthinkable, 2) surreptitiously via accelerating and unexpectedly higher inflation – likely but not significant in its impact, 3) deceptively via a declining dollar– currently taking place right in front of our noses, and 4) stealthily via policy rates and Treasury yields far below historical levels – paying savers less on their money and hoping they won’t complain.

If I were sitting before Congress – at a safe olfactory distance – and giving testimony on our current debt crisis, I would pithily say something like this:

“I sit before you as a representative of a $1.2 trillion money manager, historically bond oriented, that has been selling Treasuries because they have little value within the context of a $75 trillion total debt burden.

Unless entitlements are substantially reformed, I am confident that this country will default on its debt; not in conventional ways, but by picking the pocket of savers via a combination of less observable, yet historically verifiable policies – inflation, currency devaluation and low to negative real interest rates. Our clients, who represent unions, cities, U.S. and global pension funds, foundations, as well as Main Street citizens, do not want to be shortchanged or have their pockets picked. It is incumbent, therefore, in order to preserve the integrity of the U.S. Treasury market along with its favorable global interest rates, and to promote a stable U.S. economy, that entitlement spending be reduced, and that future liabilities be addressed in terms of healthcare and Social Security cost containment. You must attack entitlements and make ‘debt’ a four-letter word.”

I guess jason thinks Bill Gross misquoted himself.

In a previous posting, Gross points out the Treasuries are not desirable due to low yields resulting from the Fed's actions to deal with the outsized government debt:

"To rebalance debt loads and re-equitize financial institutions that should have known better, central banks and policymakers are taking money from one class of asset holders and giving it to another. A low or negative real interest rate for an “extended period of time” is the most devilish of all policy tools."

Well, since LICCDope is the expert on balancing bond portfolios based on their modified durations (and RS has on a HUGE MBS hedge), he should likely realize that B.G. would be dumping Treasuries b/c interest rates are going to rise, and if interest rates rise, the value of bonds falls.

Not that I agree with the present monetary policy - straight out of the Monetarist Handbook by M. Friedman - but you have to put it into context.

You IGNORE HALF OF WHAT HE SAYS, LICC. You are a total dummy on this topic. He says taxes should be raised AND spending should be cut.

"Gross also addressed the tax and budget debate in Washington, saying that corporations are paying too little in taxes compared to individuals. He said fixing the tax code would be helpful but only if it's done right.

"That's fine as long as you get rid of the loopholes. The problems that always result from that is that corporations, through K Street lobbying, have basically made the deal a good one for themselves," he said. "They're already only paying 1 percent of GDP (in taxes). Labor is paying a much higher percentage of taxes than they ever have."

If you go to from 2:30-4:30 in the video of the interview he says that BOTH corporate and income taxes need to go up. He says that a lot needs to be done to RAISE REVENUE.

He says that republicans need to address the fact that wages are too low and corporate profits too high in the same portion.

Quite taking only half his argument, dummy.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42432623

At 5:00 he REPEATS that revenue raising needs to be part of the solution. Dummy.

jason, I never questioned what he said about taxes. But you flat-out misstated what Gross said about the deficits. Fact.

Do you want to call me more stupid names again?

I did not mistate anything. He said he was not in USTs because interests rates were too low. He did NOT say he was not in them because he seriously thought the US WILL default. The countries he is investing in currently generally all have the same demographic time bombs. They just have higher returns now.

He also NEVER said it was a "liberal" problem. he specifically called out the GOP for fantasizing that we do not need to raise taxes.

Jason, if LICC were interested in facts, he wouldn't have started this thread.
"A modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- JK Galbraith

thank you jason and maly

tellit

You don't associate growing entitlements and government spending with liberalism? Stop being disingenuous jason.

I gave you Gross' EXACT quote above:

"If I were sitting before Congress – at a safe olfactory distance – and giving testimony on our current debt crisis, I would pithily say something like this:

I sit before you as a representative of a $1.2 trillion money manager, historically bond oriented, that has been selling Treasuries because they have little value within the context of a $75 trillion total debt burden.

Unless entitlements are substantially reformed, I am confident that this country will default on its debt; . . ."

Then jason says: "He [Gross] said he was not in USTs because interests rates were too low. He did NOT say he was not in them because he seriously thought the US WILL default."

jason, please return to reality . . .

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill

More from Churchill:

"It is not alone that property, in all its forms, is struck at, but that liberty, in all its forms, is challenged by the fundamental conceptions of socialism."

"The vice of capitalism is that it stands for the unequal sharing of blessings; whereas the virtue of socialism is that it stands for the equal sharing of misery."

"Is it better to have equality at the price of poverty or well-being at the price of inequality?"

"'All men are created equal' says the American Declaration of Independence. 'All men shall be kept equal' say the Socialists."

On Leftists: "Let them quit these gospels of envy, hate, and malice. Let them abandon the utter fallacy, the grotesque, erroneous, fatal blunder of believing that by limiting the enterprise of man, by riveting the shackles of a false equality...they will increase the well-being of the world."

And that is why I like Obama. He balances conservative principles as well as liberal principles.

I for one hear and agree with BOTH things Bill Gross said. 1) we need to get entitlement spending under control. 2) we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

Even Paul Krugman and Bill Reich agree with #1. There is zero controversy over #1.

What you have failed to acknowledge is #2. If you cite Bill Gross as your "appeal to authority", then you have to say is is ALSO a reasonable authority on #2.