The Fiscal Cliff

[Goatnapper'96]

BTW, do you disagree with me about who will be hurt the most?

It seems to me that the "working rich" will be the ones that are castrated and not the "wealthy".

IMO, rich is about income. Wealth is accumulation of assets.

The "working rich" are going to be cut off at the knees and the hope of "wealth" will become a much more difficult thing to attain.

I tend to agree with you but mostly because I think it is the upwardly mobile higher middle class and upper class that are responsible for the growing disparity in income.

But I also look at the % of GDP the government collects and how it is at very lows in comparison to the last 40-50 years and I realize that government revenues must be increased. Part of me wonders if the President really wants the tax rates for all to increase, which is the solution I think is needed on the revenue side, and he is hoping by taking and maintaining untenable positions it will happen and he won't take the blame. I am not so convinced he won't take some blame but I am beginning to wonder if that is his endgame.

[byu71]

BTW, do you disagree with me about who will be hurt the most?

It seems to me that the "working rich" will be the ones that are castrated and not the "wealthy".

IMO, rich is about income. Wealth is accumulation of assets.

The "working rich" are going to be cut off at the knees and the hope of "wealth" will become a much more difficult thing to attain.

No, I agree with you and why I have said from the start Obama's war on millionaire's and billionaire's is a farce. If that was who he was really going after he would be rasing rates on them, not those who make $250K to $999K. Those people who have not already accumulated wealth are now going to have a harder time doing it.

I still maintain in absolute $$$ his tax brings in more from those who make between $250 and $999 than those who make over $1million. He can make his case easier though by referring to the millionaire's and billionaire's as the ones he is going after. They are easier to dislike.

[Portland Ute]

But I also look at the % of GDP the government collects and how it is at very lows in comparison to the last 40-50 years and I realize that government revenues must be increased.

Well, then broaden the base. Don't keep narrowing the base yet increasing the revenue from that narrowed base.

But nobody wants to say or do that...

[byu71]

I tend to agree with you but mostly because I think it is the upwardly mobile higher middle class and upper class that are responsible for the growing disparity in income.

But I also look at the % of GDP the government collects and how it is at very lows in comparison to the last 40-50 years and I realize that government revenues must be increased. Part of me wonders if the President really wants the tax rates for all to increase, which is the solution I think is needed on the revenue side, and he is hoping by taking and maintaining untenable positions it will happen and he won't take the blame. I am not so convinced he won't take some blame but I am beginning to wonder if that is his endgame.

The top 1% earn 17% of the income and pay 37% of the taxes. Add in the top 2-5% and they plus the 1% earn 32% of the income and pay 57% of the taxes. I doubt the percentage brought in as a percentage of the GDP is because the top 5% is paying less as a percentage of the GDP

[Goatnapper'96]

The top 1% earn 17% of the income and pay 37% of the taxes. Add in the top 2-5% and they plus the 1% earn 32% of the income and pay 57% of the taxes. I doubt the percentage brought in as a percentage of the GDP is because the top 5% is paying less as a percentage of the GDP

I think it is due to many reasons. Probably the most obvious has been how the Great Recession cratered incomes for so many middle class and lower middle class folks. However, purely from a revenue perspective I think the government needs more revenue. But at present we have the most progressive tax structure we have had in our history. I think it would be fair and balanced to return to the Clinton tax rates across the board.

[Goatnapper'96]

Well, then broaden the base. Don't keep narrowing the base yet increasing the revenue from that narrowed base.

But nobody wants to say or do that...

I have said it for a few years. However, I am pretty convinced that if I ran for office some of the things I have said on the internet would jeapordize my chances to be elected.

[SCcoug]

But I also look at the % of GDP the government collects and how it is at very lows in comparison to the last 40-50 years and I realize that government revenues must be increased. Part of me wonders if the President really wants the tax rates for all to increase, which is the solution I think is needed on the revenue side, and he is hoping by taking and maintaining untenable positions it will happen and he won't take the blame. I am not so convinced he won't take some blame but I am beginning to wonder if that is his endgame.

But that is more a function of growth/employment than anything else. Post-War federal revenue average is something like 18%. The feds collected above that average even with the bush tax rates in 06 and 07. I could accept higher rates if I could get growth along with it but in my opinion raising rates in a stagnant economy will do more harm than good.

Meanwhile on the spending side nothing is being done. The Presidents opening offer was for more spending and possible cuts (in the rate of increase) in the future. In George Will's column he quotes an article at RealClearMarkets:

Take the end of President Clinton's term as the point of comparison since the budget was balanced. Annual federal spending was $1.94 trillion, revenue was $2.10 trillion. Adjusting for inflation and population growth since the start of 2001, today's equivalents would be $2.77 trillion in spending and $3.00 trillion in revenue. That would be a nice budget surplus of $230 billion.

So where did it go? Was it the Bush tax cuts? The Obama stimulus? The recession? Yes, yes, and yes; but the blame is not shared equally.

Today the federal government is collecting $2.67 trillion in revenue ($330 billion short of the Clinton-equivalent) and is spending $3.76 trillion. Yes, that's right; we are spending $987 billion more than if we increased the last Clinton budget for inflation and population growth. It sure looks to me like spending is the main culprit.

If only we had real leadership in the white house and on the hill.

[byu71]

But that is more a function of growth/employment than anything else. Post-War federal revenue average is something like 18%. The feds collected above that average even with the bush tax rates in 06 and 07. I could accept higher rates if I could get growth along with it but in my opinion raising rates in a stagnant economy will do more harm than good.

Meanwhile on the spending side nothing is being done. The Presidents opening offer was for more spending and possible cuts (in the rate of increase) in the future. In George Will's column he quotes an article at RealClearMarkets:



If only we had real leadership in the white house and on the hill.

Great information. Everyone talks about how great things were even with the higher rates during the Clinton administration. No one talks about what spending was then and how Hillary's health care plan had been shot down and we got welfare reform. Remember Clinton started governing as a centrist. His left was really on his case on welfare reform.

As some have said, it isn't the rate hike alone that is keeping investors on the sidelines, it is the prospect of a run away entitlement society and an ever increasing need to revenue and borrowing to quench the thirst of those living on the tit.

If you want to include SS folks, then I agree I am on the tit too. We need REFORM on everyone sucking on it.

[byu71]

Warren Buffet has become a fool or at least someone saying foolish things.

I know of 3 instances today where people made decisions involving over 20 million dollars were influenced by impending rising tax rates and just the overall concern about the business environment with Obama and the dems riding herd on things.

[Goatnapper'96]

Warren Buffet has become a fool or at least someone saying foolish things.

I know of 3 instances today where people made decisions involving over 20 million dollars were influenced by impending rising tax rates and just the overall concern about the business environment with Obama and the dems riding herd on things.

Warren Buffet knows that the direction of tax policy that Obama likes will benefit the ultra wealthy investor. Especially the estate/death tax options. He isn't a fool he just is looking out for himself.

[byu71]

Warren Buffet knows that the direction of tax policy that Obama likes will benefit the ultra wealthy investor. Especially the estate/death tax options. He isn't a fool he just is looking out for himself.

That is why I said he said something foolish, not that he is a fool. However, you do say foolish things to people who can easily be fooled.

Warren Buffet, the Oracle of Omaha, I don't think has beaten the S&P 500 for any 5 year period over the last 20 years. Someone who enjoys proving me wrong can research and see if I am wrong.

I would love to hear the new tax law require those with more than 500 million being required to pay Esate taxes first on any sums donated to charity.

Mr "it isn't fair for my secretary" would squawk like a stucked pig. He thinks the government can spend my money more wisely than I can, but not him.

[Katy Lied]

'71, when did your boy Jim Cramer become a running dog tool of Warren Buffett and other ersatz Liberals With Money? I caught him on the morning shows and he has really changed his TV shtick.

[byu71]

'71, when did your boy Jim Cramer become a running dog tool of Warren Buffett and other ersatz Liberals With Money? I caught him on the morning shows and he has really changed his TV shtick.

Actually he has been a liberal leaning jackass for a long time. I am not saying he is a jackass because he is liberal, if you have watched him from the beginning he has always been a self promoting jackass.

I am amazed at the number of people who don't realize how many of these so called financial guru's are democrat. They go to Ivy league schools and get hired at places like Goldman Sachs. They aren't solid investors often, they are solid manipulaters and system players.

The CEO's of both of the first two large brokerage firms I worked for were democrats. To speak in napper terms, big wall st. folks have rubbed Chuck Shumer and the Clintons inner thighs for a long time.

[YOhio]

A bunch of economists signed a letter opposing tax hikes. The real question is why pelagius never signs any of these letters.

http://www.ntu.org/news-and-issues/b...r-12-2012.html

[byu71]

Last night I heard the Fed made 16.7 billion on their bailout of AIG.

I have heard they made money on the bank bailouts.

Even though the taxpayer has made money on these financial institutions, it is popular to blame them for the calamity and hate them. OK

Seems where we have lost money is GM and government grants to clean air projects. I don't know if we can draw any conclusions from this, but I am going to think on it.