rickyp wrote:No Fate, I don't expect Americans to line up to pay more taxes.
Mostly because i think that since about 1980 many Americans have been deluded into believing that taxes can always be cut, deficits don't matter, and all goverment spending is wasteful...

Oh, that explains why Romney cruised to victory . . .

These generalisations without specific evidence is the largest part of blather whenever discussion about deficits begin.
The taxation portion is never discussed.

Actually, it is. Americans seem to have no problem with taxes going up on "the other guy."

ray

A great calculator except it ignores the substantial 2013 tax rate increases

And you think tthose increases fixed the revenue problem?
The revenue problem, is evidenced by data from 1981 that displays deficit after deficit,
and when you compare tax rates by the various income levels provided by this tool, you can see where the revenue stoppedcoming from. (Upper incomes) but didn't change all that much. (lower levels)

fate

Oh, that explains why Romney cruised to victory

I said "many" Fate.
And in the American system of governance, minority representation can stop legislation.
(Senators representing only about a third of the population can stop legislation).
So many is often good enough to stop an agenda even if it is widely supported.

Ricky:

ray

A great calculator except it ignores the substantial 2013 tax rate increases

And you think tthose increases fixed the revenue problem?
The revenue problem, is evidenced by data from 1981 that displays deficit after deficit,
and when you compare tax rates by the various income levels provided by this tool, you can see where the revenue stoppedcoming from. (Upper incomes) but didn't change all that much. (lower levels)

It would be a helpful graph if it included our current rates (which are much higher that what you've produced). So fundamentally I think it is an unhelpful component to this discussion. That you've decided to imagine my position and then attack me when I called you out on it instead of correcting the graph or acknowledging its shortcomings speaks volumes.

Primarily I think we have a spending problem. We spend too much on the wrong stuff; and by doing that, we crowd out spending on the right stuff, such as science funding.

ray

It would be a helpful graph if it included our current rates (which are much higher that what you've produced). So fundamentally I think it is an unhelpful component to this discussion. That you've decided to imagine my position and then attack me when I called you out on it instead of correcting the graph or acknowledging its shortcomings speaks volumes

.
I haven't imagined a thing. I asked you a question. You didn't reply to it, so the question remains.
The problems are thirty years long. The part you complain is missing is about 6 months long.
Your complaint is without perspective. Moreover, if you could provide some insight into how you think the 2013 increase repair the situatin that would be helpful.

You may think the problem is primarily spending. But you offer no evidence.
There are two sides balancing a budget. Spending and revenue.
Without looking at both sides of the arguement, and providing evidence you follow the standard rant from the right. There is an unwillingness to examine exactly how deficits have been created over the last 30+ years.

rickyp wrote:ray

It would be a helpful graph if it included our current rates (which are much higher that what you've produced). So fundamentally I think it is an unhelpful component to this discussion. That you've decided to imagine my position and then attack me when I called you out on it instead of correcting the graph or acknowledging its shortcomings speaks volumes

.
I haven't imagined a thing. I asked you a question. You didn't reply to it, so the question remains.
The problems are thirty years long. The part you complain is missing is about 6 months long.
Your complaint is without perspective. Moreover, if you could provide some insight into how you think the 2013 increase repair the situatin that would be helpful.

You may think the problem is primarily spending. But you offer no evidence.
There are two sides balancing a budget. Spending and revenue.
Without looking at both sides of the arguement, and providing evidence you follow the standard rant from the right. There is an unwillingness to examine exactly how deficits have been created over the last 30+ years.

Where to begin? First, this thread is about the U.S. not funding basic science. I agree with Freeman that is a shame. I believe the reason is that we spend wastefully. I've cited a good example of that. There are plenty more. For example, post office Sat. delivery costs about the same as the science funding shortfall. What about some of the energy "investments"? What about ethanol or Medicare and Medicaid fraud, or disability? The examples of government waste forcing us to cut from our science budget are numerous..

Your point is that it is not a spending problem, but it is a revenue problem. However, if I have shown waste in excess of the science funding shortfall, then this particular issue is not about there being a revenue problem.

Then when I point out that your table on effective tax rates isn't germane to the discussion since they don't reflect the current tax rates, you say that is only 6 months worth our of 30 years. But from the perspective of the deficit, the most recent 6 months are the most important. It's clear that your arguments are neither germane, nor well constructed.

The highest U.S tax rate is now 43.4% on investment income and over 40% on earned income. If you add high state taxes, I would say that our tax rates are high enough.

Finally, this is the question that you asked me:

And you think tthose increases fixed the revenue problem?

I think it is a silly question. I don't think there is a revenue problem to begin with so the question makes no sense. I didn't dodge the question, I just think it is poorly constructed. It's a spending problem that we have.

ray

Your point is that it is not a spending problem, but it is a revenue problem

NO. I said it was both.
But that the right is unwilling to consider that it was in large part, tax cuts, particularly to the wealthy, corporations and investors on Wall Street, that have created deficits. To the extent that now valuable programs and successful programs are being cut.
I tend to agree that is a lot of wastful spending, however... its also obvious in discussions about cuts that there is no agreement about what is wasteful and what is not.
That fundamental science is now being cut, when it is investment like this that has spurred the American economy for decades ... then the discussion needs to broaden.
Bbauska, you'fe seeing, through sequesstration, what "cross the board" cuts do... They take the responsibility for making educated wise decisions out of the equation and inevitably create mistakes.

Rickyp

And you think tthose increases fixed the revenue problem?

Ray

I think it is a silly question. I don't think there is a revenue problem to begin with so the question makes no sense

.
So the past three and half decades of deficits are only due to over spending and not due to major tax cuts?
Well, thats the attitude that ends up creating deficits because at the same time, there has been no real serious reduction in many spending programs over the last 30 years. An unwillingness to actually cut programs (say ethanol subsidies) means that tax cuts shouldn't have been made. But that would require a serious commitment to honor the responsiblity due one's descendants... And that dosn't seem to matter..

I made the point about 30 years of under taxation being part of creating deficits, because there tends to be a "quick fix" attitude. The adjustments made to taxation levels over the last six months, have only retraced taxation levels back some...Most taxation rates are still lower than than need to be to support current spending levels. And still lower than then were in say 1998. (The laast year that created a surplus of sorts..)
Americans have been irresponsible on two fronts. Spending and taxation. delinking the two by pretending only one contributes to deficits is somewhat delusional.
But then so was the Laffer Curve. And that helped sell the delusion didn't it?

rickyp wrote:ray

Your point is that it is not a spending problem, but it is a revenue problem

NO. I said it was both.
But that the right is unwilling to consider that it was in large part, tax cuts, particularly to the wealthy, corporations and investors on Wall Street, that have created deficits. To the extent that now valuable programs and successful programs are being cut.

Is this accurate? In a word, no.



In my never-ending effort to be non-partisan, look at spending in 2000 as compared to 2012.

2000: $2.325T
2012: $3.563

Now, I don't care how you slice it, dice it, or splice it, we did not cut $1.34T annually in taxes. Spending has gone up.

I tend to agree that is a lot of wastful spending, however... its also obvious in discussions about cuts that there is no agreement about what is wasteful and what is not.

Democrats don't seem to have much trouble with too many budget items. It is the GOP (I think of Senator Coburn with his annual report) that tends to point it out.

That fundamental science is now being cut, when it is investment like this that has spurred the American economy for decades ... then the discussion needs to broaden.

If it is indeed "fundamental," we've already pointed out enough savings that could be made without raising one penny in taxes.

There is delusion in this forum and it's name is "rickyp." Raising taxes has consequences too. It's not a straight line, "If we raise taxes 'x' percent, we will gain 'y' revenue" because when you raise taxes, you change behavior.

As a footnote, it is President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid who have sabotaged tax simplification with their insistence that any such effort must NOT be revenue neutral.

Spending is indeed part of the issue. Of course, we can see that between those years revenue income fell a bit too.

And then there's the point that while the amounts are inflation-adjusted, they are not adjusted for the size of the economy, or just the population.

The US population has risen from 282.16 million to 314.69 million in that period (source: http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table ), up by 11.5%.

Spending per head 2000: £8,240
Spending per head 2012: £11,322 +37.5%

Revenue per head 2000: £9,328
Revenue per head 2012: £7,738 -17%

Spending has risen faster than revenue has fallen, but they have both gone in the wrong direction.

Yes, increasing taxes can have effects. So can cutting spending.

Ricky:

Most taxation rates are still lower than than need to be to support current spending levels. And still lower than then were in say 1998. (The laast year that created a surplus of sorts..)

The top tax rate in 1998 was 39.6%. For many taxpayers it is now over 41% because of ACA.

Similarly the highest LTCG rate was 20% in 1998; it is 23.8% now.

I also think we have to get the big picture right. The compromise that brought in the sequester increased taxes on the wealthy and didn't touch the Bush tax cuts for those with income under $400,000. That was the revenue side. On the spending side they agreed to the sequester.

ray

I also think we have to get the big picture right. The compromise that brought in the sequester increased taxes on the wealthy and didn't touch the Bush tax cuts for those with income under $400,000. That was the revenue side. On the spending side they agreed to the sequester

Have you also considered that tax rules like "carried interest" and capital gains ...altered the effective tax rates of the super rich and they haven't seen changes?
However, Danivons right to demonstrate the revenue/spending picture on the macro basis.
He's looking at it on a per person basis.
One might also consider what the revenue and spending was on a percentage of GDP basis.
Taxation was, for years in the 17 to 19 % range and fell to 15-16% under Bush ...
Spending as a percentage increased under Reagan and has only recently begun to curve down. (spending as a percentage of GDP went up after the crash because the GDP declined.

I doubt this issue will be addressed until one party or the other has an effective majority in both houses and the white house... Because there is a refusal to consider the whole picture.

am I actually hearing this right? Is Ricky trying to say we do not have a spending problem but rather a tax problem? Continue to spend spend spend but make up for it in taxes? We spend more than any other country and we don't spend too much? He wants us to actually welcome higher and higher taxes like it's a wonderful thing we should be happy to pay?

GMTom wrote:am I actually hearing this right? Is Ricky trying to say we do not have a spending problem but rather a tax problem? Continue to spend spend spend but make up for it in taxes? We spend more than any other country and we don't spend too much? He wants us to actually welcome higher and higher taxes like it's a wonderful thing we should be happy to pay?

To be fair to RickyP, he says it is both, but only expounds on the increase of revenue.

Answering a previous comment about across the board cuts:
I do NOT like across the board cuts. I wish that the Congress would have a budget. The House has approved a budget, and the Senate has yet to offer one. (Problem #1)
The Congress and President both agreed that the Sequestration be put into effect. Now they bemoan their actions (Problem #2)

Neither side can agree on how to handle our financial affairs. Barring the adult cooperative relationship needed to make government work; I see no other alternative that to make the cuts SO PAINFUL ACROSS THE BOARD, that neither side wants that to happen.

I want leaders to lead. I have enough whiny kids that I deal with when they don't get what the want.

tom

Is Ricky trying to say we do not have a spending problem but rather a tax problem

Sure thats exactly what I meant when I said this ...
ray

Your point is that it is not a spending problem, but it is a revenue problem

rickyp

NO. I said it was both.

GMTom wrote:am I actually hearing this right? Is Ricky trying to say we do not have a spending problem but rather a tax problem?

You may be 'hearing' things, but perhaps you could try 'reading' instead? It may help your understanding of a written conversation.

It is quite clear that Ricky did not write that, and indeed wrote that both are a problem. A response to sayimgyou need cuts to balance the budget is to point out that falling per-capita revenue income should also be addressed. Pointing out the highest marginal rates of some taxes are a bit higher doesn't give a full picyure. Of course, growth would itself increase tax revenue. Problem is that spending cuts - and in particular across the board ones rather than strategic ones - can impede growth.

danivon wrote:

. A response to sayimgyou need cuts to balance the budget is to point out that falling per-capita revenue income should also be addressed. Pointing out the highest marginal rates of some taxes are a bit higher doesn't give a full picyure. Of course, growth would itself increase tax revenue. Problem is that spending cuts - and in particular across the board ones rather than strategic ones - can impede growth.

It would be better to look at per capita revenue in 2013 after the recent tax hikes. Looking at 2012 is certainly not giving a "complete picture" since many tax increases took effect this year.