Comments on: Taxes: How low can you go? Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: Middleclassman Thu, 31 May 2012 01:49:24 +0000 Remember Folks! If the “Bush era tax-cuts’ are allowed to expire then all our rates will INCREASE! Including WE the “Middleclass” OBAMIE SWORE he would protect!!! Let’s face it he’s a “BALD-FACED-LIAR!!!”

By: Byron5 Tue, 29 May 2012 14:30:29 +0000 I would suggest the author also look at the percentage of citizens actually paying taxes. see if there is a change in the percentage of tax payers shouldering the burden of the, check the correlation of the “GDP” numbers to this and see if it still seems “comparatively low”.

By: CaptnCrunch Mon, 28 May 2012 13:04:20 +0000 I like your articles Chrystia, you broach the fallacies on both sides of the fence to make your readers think. Norquist is a single purpose man and as such one-dimensional on this subject, but he is correct in describing our fiscal problem as one of spending too much, not of taxing too little.

A lot of us, Republicans included would be OK with letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and/or tweaking the Corporate and Personal Income Tax rates to raise more revenue _if_ it were to be spent wisely and not thrown wily-nily down some special interest rat hole like much of the recent TARP money.

Why have we extended the payroll tax cuts? That little bit of extra cash in worker’s pockets every payday doesn’t stimulate a thing except maybe an extra trip through the McDonald’s drive though. Yet it brings the day of reckoning for Social Security closer with every uncollected dollar.

The talking heads and supposed experts keep saying, “Oh, poor deluded simple citizen. You don’t understand, a government isn’t like an individual, nor subject to the same rules of spending. When things get tight, they have to spend more, much more, to get things rolling again, and don’t worry about deficits, inflation will pay them down later.”

Perhaps, or perhaps even with fiat currency and the ability to print trillions more on a whim, each country has intrinsic finite value and once that value has been factored X number of times at the International Pawn Shop, the game is up and there is no more value left to be squeezed.

By: usagadfly Sun, 27 May 2012 04:04:31 +0000 Simply put, we pay too much in taxes, most of us anyhow, because the Government plans to default on our benefits so they can fight more wars.

In Europe, no country would propose letting citizens starve because of their sex so that a war of aggression could be fought. Look at France. Here the consensus is that there is little difference between “citizens” and “livestock”. Let them eat cake. Almost any price is too high for such an “enlightened” system.

By: 55usaidwhat Sat, 26 May 2012 21:19:22 +0000 Utilizing GDP in this comparison is problematic as different GDP methods can equate to different results. Whatever the method utilized, several facts should be divulged.

1. “GDP per capita is not a measurement of the standard of living in an economy; however, it is often used as such an indicator, on the rationale that all citizens would benefit from their country’s increased economic production. Similarly, GDP per capita is not a measure of personal income. GDP may increase while real incomes for the majority decline.” WP

2. “GDP does not account for variances in incomes of various demographic groups.” WP

3. “The GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or a reflection of capital consumption.” Frank Shostak

4. Adjusted for inflation, income has not been raised for the average worker since 1979 while the Federal Government has ballooned. “Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million).” Stephen Moore

5. “Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations.” USA TODAY
The average federal civilian employee received a salary of $81,258 in 2009, according to this analysis, which is 61 percent higher than that year’s average private sector employee salary of $50,462. The Cato Institute found that if benefits are included, then federal employees receive over twice the compensation of private sector workers: $123,049 to $61,051.

Either way, promoting raising taxes on the average American because of the tax to GDP ratio is less than it used to be, is fuzzy math. Perhaps the real issue is not about taxes, but about the way in which an ever expanding government continues to spend our money on things like wars, bailouts, military contracts, and payouts to other countries. Taxes are not the issue. It’s fiscal responsibility.

By: Robocop5626 Sat, 26 May 2012 20:46:50 +0000 The issue is not only the rates paid as part of GDP, how about getting the 49% taking the government largesse to work and pay taxes instead of filing for “credits” and everything will sort itself out naturally. Then we can discuss rates on a more even keel. The current administrations continued insistence of paying for every proposed program by taxing the rich has worn thin. But widening the base of payers might offend the supporters of the party in power.

By: SamuelReich Sat, 26 May 2012 16:49:53 +0000 Internal and external security is a limit on how small taxes can go. That means if you fight wars or have a lot of people who feel left out expect high security costs.

Economic opportunity is a requirement for long term minimum taxes. Which means low or no cost education and maybe low cost business loans. Also blocks to economic dynasties like
gift and inheritance taxes.

By: seanm Sat, 26 May 2012 08:49:31 +0000 continued —- I think when people are backed into a corner they usually fight. I think we would unionize our shop or atleast threaten to. I think some would seek employment elsewhere or atleast try harder to. I think some people would strike out on their own and try to start their own businesses, but i dont think people would just sit back and watch their kids starve to death. Just a thought.

By: seanm Sat, 26 May 2012 08:45:19 +0000 I think maybe our safety net fosters income inequality or atleast helps. Imagine we all worked at a chicken plant, pulling out their feathers, cutting their heads off and all that fun stuff. Our boss treats us like dirt and pays us next to nothing, nor does he give raises, ever! But luckily the government provides section 8 housing, food stamps, a big child tax credit at the end of the year and all that good stuff. If the government suddenly took all that away, would we just lay down and die. I doubt it. continued—-

By: LoveJoyOne Sat, 26 May 2012 04:02:26 +0000 The biggest problem in America is that too many people believe they can have their cake and eat it. Politicians should be honest and tell the public there is no free lunch. Unfortunately, they are all about being elected.

So, a huge debt is being built up which essentially guarantees future generations will be burdened to pay their parents’ and grandparents’ tax bills for years and years to come.

What a sad and selfish legacy, to steal from your own children’s futures.