New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Ryan Tax Brackets

OldGaffer

Governor
It boils down to pretty simple math, there are three major items in the US budget, Social security, Medicare and Defense, the Democrats want to cut defense, and the republicans want to cut everything but defense, even though social security and medicare are primarily self funded(by payroll taxes).
 

Bluedog

Mayor
100% of 1/2 Your Salary is LESS THAN 60% of your Current Salary

How do you not get this?



Even if it means

  • FEWER PEOPLE KEEP THEIR JOBS
    [*]Those who have jobs EARN LESS?



Again, what part of it do you not get?


Well not quite - because those are single payer rates. And that is AGI not Gross.

But even so yes that is true..... SO WHAT? If that is the price of STILL HAVING THAT JOB IN THREE YEARS vs NOT HAVING IT... what is wrong with that?



Simply not true! Cutting Goverment Spending WILL ELIMINATE MIDDLE CLASS JOBS

How do you not understand that? Even Romney gets that part.


That is one form of less purchasing power
SO IS

  • LOSING THE JOB

    [*]
    Having the salary underpeform Inflation
  • Having GDP grow slower than it would otherwise
  • Having US GDP growth LAG OTHER NATIONS

ALL of those are ways of reducing purchasing power a well.

And guess what? The first three are what happens when you cut government spending. (note the 2nd and third one means your pension evaporates as well)

When you increase wealth transfer to the wealthy, you add in the fourth one.



Why are you so anti-Middle class?
Now, you are the one projecting.

Again, we are arguing two points of view here. I'm the one trying to allow people to keep more of what they earn, the progressive tax system you provided does not do that. The system you have described seems to rely on the government providing employment, which in turn requires more tax dollars to maintain funding. You want a government industrial complex(for lack of better expression)?

Note:

0 to 30,000 no taxes.

30,000 to 250,000 10% .

You cannot accuse me of being anti-middle class, when the numbers I provided refute that statement.
 

Bluedog

Mayor
It boils down to pretty simple math, there are three major items in the US budget, Social security, Medicare and Defense, the Democrats want to cut defense, and the republicans want to cut everything but defense, even though social security and medicare are primarily self funded(by payroll taxes).
Does that mean the other items in the budget should not be considered for cuts?
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
I absolutely favor the Republican Party running on Ryan's "tax the poor" platform.

Seems perfectly fair....the working poor pay 10% MORE...and the rich pay 10% LESS. 10-10 (Much easier than 9-9-9)

:D
It's comforting to know that your math is as good as your history, you would appear to know as much about Ryans plan as you do about History in general. Which is to say nothing.
 

degsme

Council Member
It's comforting to know that your math is as good as your history, you would appear to know as much about Ryans plan as you do about History in general. Which is to say nothing.
Do you have anything substantial to contribute or are you just trying to derail the discussion?
 

degsme

Council Member
Now, you are the one projecting.

Again, we are arguing two points of view here. I'm the one trying to allow people to keep more of what they earn, the progressive tax system you provided does not do that. The system you have described seems to rely on the government providing employment, which in turn requires more tax dollars to maintain funding. You want a government industrial complex(for lack of better expression)?
No BD. I'm arguing economics, you are arguing naive numbers. The reality is that Government's affect the economy. And Modern society functions much less efficiently when you don't have functions like Public Ed, Poverty reduction, Propoerty protection in the way of Pollution Regs etc.

So THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY to reduce the Purchasing Power of the middle class, is to cut government spending in these sorts of areas.

You are arguing that for some theoretical reason it is better to take home a slightly larger percentage of a Much much smaller salary (or a non-existant salary since unemployment also goes up) than to take home a slightly smaller percentage of a much larger and more secure income.

How that is "supporting the middle class" is beyond me.

0 to 30,000 no taxes.

30,000 to 250,000 10% .

You cannot accuse me of being anti-middle class, when the numbers I provided refute that statement.
They refute nothing. Because you don't factor into it

  • Concomittant unemployment rates
  • Inflation
  • Purchasing Power of each dollar.
  • Income Mobility rates

etc etc.

You assume - in the face of all historic evidence - that cutting government civilian sector programs will not adversely affect the economy. And that simply is not true.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
Does that mean the other items in the budget should not be considered for cuts?
Blue, lets say you have a job that pays 100 a week. Your rent is 50, your groceries are 30, 10 for bus fare and 10 for everything else. Now you get cut back to 4 days a week and only make 80. What are you going to cut?
 

degsme

Council Member
Does that mean the other items in the budget should not be considered for cuts?
All the other items TOGETHER make up 1/3 of the budget. This includes

  • Property protections
  • Court systems
  • Prisons
  • Anti-Pollution enforcment
  • FDA
  • College loans
  • Highway construction and maintenance
  • Bridget construction and maintenance
    etc. etc.

THE LOWEST Fiscal Multiplier here is around 1.5

The HIGHEST Fiscal Multiplier for Defense is 1.0...
 
These folks are so incorporated into the idea that government wastes most of the money they spend that they cannot even comprehend the facts surrounding the budget. It is like they are facing at the sun wearing a box over their heads maintaining it does not exist. This incongruity with budetary reality is what drives them nuts when the tea baggers they elect end up not cutting a damn thing but stupid little right wing pet peeves like the NEA or PP or foriegn aid.
 

DefeatObama

Council Member
All the other items TOGETHER make up 1/3 of the budget. This includes

  • Property protections
  • Court systems
  • Prisons
  • Anti-Pollution enforcment
  • FDA
  • College loans
  • Highway construction and maintenance
  • Bridget construction and maintenance
    etc. etc.

THE LOWEST Fiscal Multiplier here is around 1.5

The HIGHEST Fiscal Multiplier for Defense is 1.0...
anti-pollution enforcement? isn't that the department of crucifixion?

oh good... the multipliers.... government broken window repair shops.

imagine the multiplier if we all worked for the government after turning all of our income over to who it really belongs to, eh degs?
 

DefeatObama

Council Member
Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate
Some argue the U.S. economy can bear higher pre-Reagan tax rates. But those rates applied to a much smaller fraction of taxpayers than what we're headed for without spending cuts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443893352153776.html

"Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government(the point at which degs declares 'VICTORY'), reduced to a minority partner in their own labor."
 

degsme

Council Member
Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate
Some argue the U.S. economy can bear higher pre-Reagan tax rates. But those rates applied to a much smaller fraction of taxpayers than what we're headed for without spending cuts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443893352153776.html

"Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%.
Well of course this is based on the bogus claim that the employee would get in their pay packet the full amount of the FICA tax (curious how NOW you call it just a tax on income where before you were insisting it was something different) that the employers would otherwise not pay. And of course that simply is not true. So the more proper calculation is

25% Federal rate
9.5% CA rate
7% RICA rate. For a combined rate of 41.5%.

Note also this is The MARGINAL RATE to be fully honest and acurate we would see http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html
$0-$8700 = 10%+9.5%+7% ==> $2305.50
$8701-$35,350 = 15%+16.5% ==> $8394.44
$25,350 - $60,000 = 25%+16.5% = $14379.34
For a Total Tax bill (everything all in) of $25,079.28

25,079.28/60,000 = 41.8%

Hmm... So this idea that such teacher only keeps 29% of her wages is complete and utter intellectual dishonesty.

First off the "combined" tax rate is 4% les than stated.

Secondly there is no reason to have to cover the deficit by raising taxes equally on all, since we know that Higher Taxes on the upper quintiles INCREASES GDP GROWTH which in turn increases tax revenues by an addtional 20%.

But of course that would be an intellectually honest (as in including all the relevant FACTS) discussion.

Instead we have the following Strawman claims in that

  • The assumption that the Employer side of FICA is paid by the employee
  • That the tax rate that matters to Quality of Life is the Marginal one rather that the NET Rate
  • That tax increases would be raised EQUALLY across the spectrum
  • That such tax increases would NOT INPROVE GDP Growth when we know that for the uppper quintile IT WOULD.


Ah yes.. another strawman post. Courtesy of DO courtesy of Rupert Murdoch's Minions...

FACTS MATTER
all of them - even the inconvenient ones.
 

degsme

Council Member
anti-pollution enforcement? isn't that the department of crucifixion?

oh good... the multipliers.... government broken window repair shops.

imagine the multiplier if we all worked for the government after turning all of our income over to who it really belongs to, eh degs?
IOW you don't address any facts, you dont provide any support for your claims

you offer a strawman
and hyperbole.

Shoo troll
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Oh, you mean like freedom to earn and keep as much property as you desire without fear of confiscation for redistribution.

Yup....let's make taxes optional.
 

degsme

Council Member
ThereYa Go DO... how much time did you spend chasing down every one of my posts to Dislike them!!!

ROTFLMAO!!! You go girl... It annoys me sooooo much.
and my ranking matters SOOO MUCH TO ME...

After all, this is Junior High right???

LOLZ
 

DefeatObama

Council Member
Oh, you mean like freedom to earn and keep as much property as you desire without fear of confiscation for redistribution.

Yup....let's make taxes optional.
I think most of us would opt out. not practical. currently the unfair % that the top 10% pays is 70%? at what number does that become 'fair' ?
 

Bluedog

Mayor
No BD. I'm arguing economics, you are arguing naive numbers. The reality is that Government's affect the economy. And Modern society functions much less efficiently when you don't have functions like Public Ed, Poverty reduction, Propoerty protection in the way of Pollution Regs etc.

So THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY to reduce the Purchasing Power of the middle class, is to cut government spending in these sorts of areas.

You are arguing that for some theoretical reason it is better to take home a slightly larger percentage of a Much much smaller salary (or a non-existant salary since unemployment also goes up) than to take home a slightly smaller percentage of a much larger and more secure income.

How that is "supporting the middle class" is beyond me.



They refute nothing. Because you don't factor into it

  • Concomittant unemployment rates
  • Inflation
  • Purchasing Power of each dollar.
  • Income Mobility rates

etc etc.

You assume - in the face of all historic evidence - that cutting government civilian sector programs will not adversely affect the economy. And that simply is not true.
As usual, we are going to agree to disagree. :)
 

degsme

Council Member
As usual, we are going to agree to disagree. :)
BD its not a question of "disagreeing"... you simply have not made your case. And the historic data is contrary to your claims.

  • We know that prior to Stimulative intervention in the economy during downturns
    • The FREQUENCY of economic crashes/Panics was THREE TIMES as frequent (averaging every 3-4 years vs. 9-12)
    • The duration of the recover was EIGHT TIMES AS LONG (averaging 2 years vs. Three months)
    • That the Growth rate from 1933-1936 was 8.1% - very robust but 46% crash in GDP takes a long time to recover from
    • That when FDR cut government spending in early 1937 during the recovery, GDP SHRANK by 4% for a year AND PEOPLE LOST JOBS
    • That when FDR reinstituted government spending in late '37 by 1938 the GDP was back to growing at 8% AND PEOPLES GAINED JOBS
    That basically contradicts your assertions.

    We know that Marginal Utility as a way of determining "fairness" is so ingrained in the way our brains perceive the world that even Chimpanzes have a functional perception of that as fair.

    We know that ALL SOCIETIES transfer wealth. In fact wealth allocation is A PRIMARY ROLE OF SOCIETY.

    We know that when Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy - GDP GROWTH WAS REDUCED and PEOPLE'S PURCHASING POWER Flattened

    We know that when GWB cut taxes for the wealthy a second time - GDP Growth fell to 22% BELOW HISTORIC AVERAGES, Job Creation to below replacement levels and People's Purchasing power DECLINED



    You refute none of this. You don't even bother to try. Instead you just throw up your hands and say "well we will have to disagree"....Its a bit like you asserting that your PC works "by magic" and me explaining to you the actual physics of it, and you responding "We will just have to disagree"..
 
Top