Krugman heralds start of next depression

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
That’s true. That’s a why a simple system with a substantially higher marginal tax rates for the high earners is a progressive system.
[/quote]

Shouldn’t be ‘punitive’, but there is an ‘economy of scale’ relative to disposable income. The more you make, the less is allocated to basic living expenses, emphasis on ‘basic’.

I have no problem with adding in another bracket.. ie a 30 to 35% bracket on very high earners on the fed form.. I would need to dig through the bracket to locate a good #.. but it would probably be over $2Mil/yr. The % should not be higher than the corporate tax rate (35%) because it would push people to ‘game the system’.

With CA state.. probably something around 11%.. on a very high income… again watching out for state corporate tax rates.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/faq/717.shtml
I gotta look into S-corporations.. 8-P

Taking all the above into consideration though, I do think that the gov has to watch out for abuse of its citizenry through taxes.

[kev374]

I know plenty of 1099 contractors who lease expensive cars for personal use and write off a good chunk of the lease on their taxes. They also write off lunches and dinners disguising them as business activities. Vacations become business trips etc. etc. It’s way too easy to dupe the system. The folks with W2 income paying the entire 49-50% marginal tax rate are the ones being screwed.

[kev374]

I know plenty of 1099 contractors who lease expensive cars for personal use and write off a good chunk of the lease on their taxes. They also write off lunches and dinners disguising them as business activities. Vacations become business trips etc. etc. It’s way too easy to dupe the system. The folks with W2 income paying the entire 49-50% marginal tax rate are the ones being screwed.

[kev374]

I know plenty of 1099 contractors who lease expensive cars for personal use and write off a good chunk of the lease on their taxes. They also write off lunches and dinners disguising them as business activities. Vacations become business trips etc. etc. It’s way too easy to dupe the system. The folks with W2 income paying the entire 49-50% marginal tax rate are the ones being screwed.

[kev374]

I know plenty of 1099 contractors who lease expensive cars for personal use and write off a good chunk of the lease on their taxes. They also write off lunches and dinners disguising them as business activities. Vacations become business trips etc. etc. It’s way too easy to dupe the system. The folks with W2 income paying the entire 49-50% marginal tax rate are the ones being screwed.

[kev374]

I know plenty of 1099 contractors who lease expensive cars for personal use and write off a good chunk of the lease on their taxes. They also write off lunches and dinners disguising them as business activities. Vacations become business trips etc. etc. It’s way too easy to dupe the system. The folks with W2 income paying the entire 49-50% marginal tax rate are the ones being screwed.

[drboom]

[quote=jeeman]The only reason we had a surplus in 1998-2000 was because of massive capital gains tax revenues from the stock market bubble. When this went away, the deficits returned. Bush cut tax *rates*, but if you look at tax *revenue* charts, the revenues climbed after the rate cuts.[/quote]

This is a widely-held belief (that a surplus existed), but it’s not true.

A change in accounting lumped Social Security contributions into the government’s “income” category. It was a dishonest change and was done for obvious political reasons. There was in fact a substantial (though laughably low by 2010 standards) deficit throughout that period.

[drboom]

[quote=jeeman]The only reason we had a surplus in 1998-2000 was because of massive capital gains tax revenues from the stock market bubble. When this went away, the deficits returned. Bush cut tax *rates*, but if you look at tax *revenue* charts, the revenues climbed after the rate cuts.[/quote]

This is a widely-held belief (that a surplus existed), but it’s not true.

A change in accounting lumped Social Security contributions into the government’s “income” category. It was a dishonest change and was done for obvious political reasons. There was in fact a substantial (though laughably low by 2010 standards) deficit throughout that period.

[drboom]

[quote=jeeman]The only reason we had a surplus in 1998-2000 was because of massive capital gains tax revenues from the stock market bubble. When this went away, the deficits returned. Bush cut tax *rates*, but if you look at tax *revenue* charts, the revenues climbed after the rate cuts.[/quote]

This is a widely-held belief (that a surplus existed), but it’s not true.

A change in accounting lumped Social Security contributions into the government’s “income” category. It was a dishonest change and was done for obvious political reasons. There was in fact a substantial (though laughably low by 2010 standards) deficit throughout that period.

[drboom]

[quote=jeeman]The only reason we had a surplus in 1998-2000 was because of massive capital gains tax revenues from the stock market bubble. When this went away, the deficits returned. Bush cut tax *rates*, but if you look at tax *revenue* charts, the revenues climbed after the rate cuts.[/quote]

This is a widely-held belief (that a surplus existed), but it’s not true.

A change in accounting lumped Social Security contributions into the government’s “income” category. It was a dishonest change and was done for obvious political reasons. There was in fact a substantial (though laughably low by 2010 standards) deficit throughout that period.

[drboom]

[quote=jeeman]The only reason we had a surplus in 1998-2000 was because of massive capital gains tax revenues from the stock market bubble. When this went away, the deficits returned. Bush cut tax *rates*, but if you look at tax *revenue* charts, the revenues climbed after the rate cuts.[/quote]

This is a widely-held belief (that a surplus existed), but it’s not true.

A change in accounting lumped Social Security contributions into the government’s “income” category. It was a dishonest change and was done for obvious political reasons. There was in fact a substantial (though laughably low by 2010 standards) deficit throughout that period.

[pjwal]

Krugman, Obama and other Keynesians suffer from a misguided principal toward dividing the existing economic pie rather than growing the pie for everyone.

Too many people equate tax cuts with loss of federal revenue when history has always shown the opposite to be true. The current administration could provide an immediate boost to the economy simply by saying they would support another year of the tax cuts that are set to expire, but instead they are focusing on some Utopian fallacy of ending homelessness, paying people not to work and taxing financial institutions. Dividend taxes are set to quadruple, the death tax is going to go up to 53% and include assets that it has never before (homes and life insurance benefits), and income taxes on those that can afford to invest. Corporations are in a stand still with the looming tax increases and a fear of the not knowing what industry this current administration is going to target next.

The Fed never “prints” money, the US government sells bonds and that is only cheap in the context of the present. It is borrowing against our future and if it is always an economically beneficial policy, than why shouldn’t we do it all the time? We have never spent our way out of a recession.

We don’t need a collapse to bring back us back to prosperity, but we don’t need a quadrupling of our deficit as a percentage of GDP (the measurement that counts) to avoid a collapse. Both can be true as the historical data show Keynesian spending policies delay recovery, not initiate it. We have a 13 trillion dollar GDP and, while our federal spending has increased to a staggering 13% of it, what have we shown for it? The latest estimation of the upcoming bailout cost for Fannie and Freddie? 1 Trillion! It’s not enough for you to save 20% for your house, make your payments…now you have to produce enough goods and services and wealth to effectively subsidize the cost of a house for someone else and as far as anyone can tell, this is the “new reality” that this administration wants.

Federal spending (with borrowed money or not) can only serve to divert resources and capital in an economy, it does not add to them. Europe and the other economies of this world have begun to learn this and I’d never thought I’d actually be wanting our country to follow their lead.

[pjwal]

Krugman, Obama and other Keynesians suffer from a misguided principal toward dividing the existing economic pie rather than growing the pie for everyone.

Too many people equate tax cuts with loss of federal revenue when history has always shown the opposite to be true. The current administration could provide an immediate boost to the economy simply by saying they would support another year of the tax cuts that are set to expire, but instead they are focusing on some Utopian fallacy of ending homelessness, paying people not to work and taxing financial institutions. Dividend taxes are set to quadruple, the death tax is going to go up to 53% and include assets that it has never before (homes and life insurance benefits), and income taxes on those that can afford to invest. Corporations are in a stand still with the looming tax increases and a fear of the not knowing what industry this current administration is going to target next.

The Fed never “prints” money, the US government sells bonds and that is only cheap in the context of the present. It is borrowing against our future and if it is always an economically beneficial policy, than why shouldn’t we do it all the time? We have never spent our way out of a recession.

We don’t need a collapse to bring back us back to prosperity, but we don’t need a quadrupling of our deficit as a percentage of GDP (the measurement that counts) to avoid a collapse. Both can be true as the historical data show Keynesian spending policies delay recovery, not initiate it. We have a 13 trillion dollar GDP and, while our federal spending has increased to a staggering 13% of it, what have we shown for it? The latest estimation of the upcoming bailout cost for Fannie and Freddie? 1 Trillion! It’s not enough for you to save 20% for your house, make your payments…now you have to produce enough goods and services and wealth to effectively subsidize the cost of a house for someone else and as far as anyone can tell, this is the “new reality” that this administration wants.

Federal spending (with borrowed money or not) can only serve to divert resources and capital in an economy, it does not add to them. Europe and the other economies of this world have begun to learn this and I’d never thought I’d actually be wanting our country to follow their lead.

[pjwal]

Krugman, Obama and other Keynesians suffer from a misguided principal toward dividing the existing economic pie rather than growing the pie for everyone.

Too many people equate tax cuts with loss of federal revenue when history has always shown the opposite to be true. The current administration could provide an immediate boost to the economy simply by saying they would support another year of the tax cuts that are set to expire, but instead they are focusing on some Utopian fallacy of ending homelessness, paying people not to work and taxing financial institutions. Dividend taxes are set to quadruple, the death tax is going to go up to 53% and include assets that it has never before (homes and life insurance benefits), and income taxes on those that can afford to invest. Corporations are in a stand still with the looming tax increases and a fear of the not knowing what industry this current administration is going to target next.

The Fed never “prints” money, the US government sells bonds and that is only cheap in the context of the present. It is borrowing against our future and if it is always an economically beneficial policy, than why shouldn’t we do it all the time? We have never spent our way out of a recession.

We don’t need a collapse to bring back us back to prosperity, but we don’t need a quadrupling of our deficit as a percentage of GDP (the measurement that counts) to avoid a collapse. Both can be true as the historical data show Keynesian spending policies delay recovery, not initiate it. We have a 13 trillion dollar GDP and, while our federal spending has increased to a staggering 13% of it, what have we shown for it? The latest estimation of the upcoming bailout cost for Fannie and Freddie? 1 Trillion! It’s not enough for you to save 20% for your house, make your payments…now you have to produce enough goods and services and wealth to effectively subsidize the cost of a house for someone else and as far as anyone can tell, this is the “new reality” that this administration wants.

Federal spending (with borrowed money or not) can only serve to divert resources and capital in an economy, it does not add to them. Europe and the other economies of this world have begun to learn this and I’d never thought I’d actually be wanting our country to follow their lead.

[pjwal]

Krugman, Obama and other Keynesians suffer from a misguided principal toward dividing the existing economic pie rather than growing the pie for everyone.

Too many people equate tax cuts with loss of federal revenue when history has always shown the opposite to be true. The current administration could provide an immediate boost to the economy simply by saying they would support another year of the tax cuts that are set to expire, but instead they are focusing on some Utopian fallacy of ending homelessness, paying people not to work and taxing financial institutions. Dividend taxes are set to quadruple, the death tax is going to go up to 53% and include assets that it has never before (homes and life insurance benefits), and income taxes on those that can afford to invest. Corporations are in a stand still with the looming tax increases and a fear of the not knowing what industry this current administration is going to target next.

The Fed never “prints” money, the US government sells bonds and that is only cheap in the context of the present. It is borrowing against our future and if it is always an economically beneficial policy, than why shouldn’t we do it all the time? We have never spent our way out of a recession.

We don’t need a collapse to bring back us back to prosperity, but we don’t need a quadrupling of our deficit as a percentage of GDP (the measurement that counts) to avoid a collapse. Both can be true as the historical data show Keynesian spending policies delay recovery, not initiate it. We have a 13 trillion dollar GDP and, while our federal spending has increased to a staggering 13% of it, what have we shown for it? The latest estimation of the upcoming bailout cost for Fannie and Freddie? 1 Trillion! It’s not enough for you to save 20% for your house, make your payments…now you have to produce enough goods and services and wealth to effectively subsidize the cost of a house for someone else and as far as anyone can tell, this is the “new reality” that this administration wants.

Federal spending (with borrowed money or not) can only serve to divert resources and capital in an economy, it does not add to them. Europe and the other economies of this world have begun to learn this and I’d never thought I’d actually be wanting our country to follow their lead.

[Author]

Posts