I was in the finance world managing a large equipment leasing portfolio when we lost ITC and accelerated depreciation with 1986 tax reform. And experienced Black Thursday. To state it was a beautiful thing sounds like a personal or bureacratic point of view.

You can compare contemporary GDP with GNP of earlier eras. One merely takes the difference for what it is; an immense increase in US standard of living and repositioning to a debtor nation that pushed the US into a post-industrial service economy due to an inability to compete on a global basis.

On tax increases or lack of, I've noticed that long-standing federal revenue sharing programs destined to be discontinued under current administration are now being considered for renewal under non-budgeted, emergency spending measures, much as Afghanistan/Iraq are being financed. While this is obviously a result of the congressional majority change with deals being cut, I can't help but wonder when non-budgeted, supplementary funding will match or exceed the formal budget.

Is there any public source for the annual total of non-budgeted spending that doesn't involve insanity from reviewing line item entries as that spending goes to debt?

No.

Those "crazy-mans" ideas are "crazy-mans" ideas.

That there are plenty of crazy people around that still buy INTO this naive idealism is true enough.

Exactly.

As anyone with basic reading comprehension skills could easily discover, starting in 1975 the outflows from the "trust fund" started exceeding the inflows. The IOUs in the Trust Fund dropped from $45.9billion in 1974 to $24.9billion in 1983, even the worthless IOUs in the trust fund were due to be redeemed within a few more years, meaning that by the mid-late 1980s the Social Security System would have been insolvent. THAT is why in 1983 a series of rolling increases in the Social Security Tax were passed, it had NOTHING to do with the 1986 tax reform known as TEFRA.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/trustfunds.html

Social Security Taxes were increased because the "trust fund" was going broke! Get your facts straight, or continue proving my point that the "trust fund" was NEVER anything more than a rhetorical device to convice easily fooled people that it was some sort of savings or investment.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

And yet in the long run, stocks still climbed after "Black Tuesday." That was the beauty of TRA 86 because it focused, tax preference wise, long term than short term. Short term tends to be volatile in economic equilibrium, given everything being equal. Or you can see another point of view here.


1. But not what Goober was implying. Again, the US faces far more competition today, some good, some bad, than the 1950's. You simply cannot compare, bottom value, the final figures between the two periods. Nothing to compare.

2. this has more to do with how tax legislation is passed and how it is accounted for. Both the 2001 and 2003 tax bills were extrmely complicated, long running, and did not meet the sunshine rules. This would include fixing AMT or even credit for the elderly or disabled (which no one qualifies for now in the first place).

3. None that I know of on the question you asked.

No kidding. Look Goober, I have been explaining to you, along with others, that SS taxes are just taxes. It was you that believes otherwise.
SS taxes are regressive, Goober. In Keynesian theory, regressive taxes strike hardest in the lower income tax brackets, but as your income grows, the tax burden is reduced gradually. You seem to think SS taxes fit into a bell shaped curve with its apex at the middle class bearing the hardest, but that is not reality. But also keep in mind that there are a lot of groups that are excluded from paying SS taxes. Just look at IRC 3121(b) which lists thirty or more groups that are exempt or can elect to be exempt. This would include certain nonresident and resident aliens, clergy, teachers, and state and local government employees, among others.
Um, Congress was also in on the scheme. It was a compromise between House Democrats and Republican President. But TRA lowered income tax rates and simplified the code, even though it was still using the same taxing scheme since 1913. Those that take advantage of the preferences will lower their effective tax rates than someone who does not, even if they are within the same income tax braket. TRA also took 9 million people off the roles from paying taxes, which was controversial in that time.
Again, taxation and wealth are two completely different items. They do not coincide with each other. Taxation is about paying a fee, tax, surcharge, or however you define it based on a taxable event. Wealth is personal choice which shows how smart or how lucky you are in your choices. Let me give you a couple of examples:
Let us say we have an individual who receives $20000 in wages. The person is single, under 65, not being claimed as a dependent, and claim no deductions or credits. Their taxable income would be as follows:
$20000-$5150 (standard deduction)-3300 (personal exemption)=$11650 (taxable income). Now their marginal tax rate is 15% because the first $7550 is taxed at 10% and the remaining is taxed at 15%

Now, take the same example, but let us say the person is 70, cannot be claimed as a dependent, and claims no deductions or credits, but has income from interest only.
They will still be taxed at 15% marginal tax rate, but are considered wealthy given the poor interest rates now in the US and thus the value of the bank account at $400k.

I used two people which one receives income from wages and one receives income from interest. One would not be considered wealthy while the other one would; yet the same rate is applied to both. This shows you just how little you understand taxation policy and taxation issues.
Tax law is very technical. Even the Earned Income Tax Credit has 17 rules which some apply to everyone, some apply to those who have qualifying children and some that apply who do not have qualifying children.

SS reform is inevitable unless you either want to raise SS taxes and/or reduce benefits. Take you poison, Goober. For me, like many other middle class Americans, SS benefits will only be a portion of our income. Other countries, like GB, Germany, Mexico, Chile, and others have reformed the SS, or old age pensions, reduce the burden, but increased benefits.

There are alot of details that could be worked out, but it is possible where it could be maintained as a RRIF OR RRSP account by Thrift Savings Plan.

And that would explain the .com equity bubble?

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The Middle Class paid more, the Wealthy paid less.
It was Reagan's way to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the Middle Class, all the rest is spin.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

All you Reagan and Bush Worshippers should get one thing straight, there is only one way to reduce taxes that is not smoke and mirrors, and that is to cut government spending.
That's something that Bill Clinton did. To truly reduce taxes, spending has to be held down so a surplus can be run and the debt paid off.
The fake Bush Economy saw the greatest peacetime expansion of the government in history, financed by the largest deficits in history.
And this is the crowning achievement of the conservative movement?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Only to idiots who don't understand the fundamental distinction between tax RATE reduction and tax reductions.

No serious student of economics questions the validity of the Laffre Curve anylonger, the only question left open to reasonable discussion is WHAT the long-term revenue optimizing point is for any given tax and for aggregate taxation in general.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I'll discuss serious student, the reference, government capital injection based on debt and elasticity when I have some spare time. I enjoy destroying supply side belief systems based on debtor nation status.

Read thru the thread. Some interesting posts. What I didn't see were any real world examples of how the proposed changes would affect people.

Here's one. A single parent with two children makes $40,000 a year ($19.23/hour) and doesn't itemize because the standard deduction is higher. $2,849 federal income tax withheld for the year. $3060 in SS and medicare withheld for the year. Weekly take home pay is around $650 if withholding is right on the money (give or take $30 depending on which state thay are in and any local taxes withheld). The 2006 federal return looks like this:

$40,000 AGI
- 7,550 standard deduction for head of household
- 9,900 exemptions for 3 people

$22,550 taxable income
2,849 federal tax liability
- 2,000 child tax credit ($1,000 per child)

$ 849 federal tax owed
2,849 withheld
50 telephone credit (this year only)

$ 2,050 refund

Given that the dems voted against any extension of the child tax credit, if the bill is passed as is, then next year this same person would get a refund of $0 (meaning they paid $2,000 more in taxes) all other things being equal.

That's what I call soaking those rich folk making $40K a year. The bums.

__________________
"You don't have to practice being miserable. Everything else we're gonna work on." - A wise Platoon Sgt.

Did you even bother to see what the budget does do; hmmm?

The ATR spin on this budget is one sided and disingenuous.

I can see why this budget proposal pisses off the Republicans; because it requires fiscal discipline; something Republicans seem to have forgotten over twelve years ago.

Sure this budget looks tight, but it's tight where it matters, it keeps funding where it should stay, and forces Congress to make tough decisions in the future about how they plan to spend our money.

I think if there was a moratorium on supplemental spending for the next five to ten years, we could have a sizable surplus again; something this country hasn't seen since a Democrat was in the White House.

The sky isn't falling, and this doesn't mean there will be a two trillion dollar tax increase over the next ten years. Nice try, but try and broaden your research before you grab the first one sided talking point you come across.

__________________
Big Number of 2008
8,217,246
Obama's Margin of Victory

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson

Let me repeat what clearly went right by you.
The only way to reduce taxes is to reduce spending.
Otherwise you are simply borrowing against future tax increases.
Tax cuts financed by borrowing have limited effect on the economy if they are directed to the middle class, they have a negative effect on the economy if they are directed to the wealthy investor class.
That is why the Bush tax cuts were so ineffective, whatever stimulus they provided by putting slightly more money in the hands of the middle class was offset by the huge revenue losses from the cuts for the wealthy investor class.
True, the economy has rebounded, but it is not a particularly strong rebound, there is no reason to believe that the rebound would have been weaker if the tax rates had been left where they were, and there is actually reason to believe that the rebound could have been stronger without the tax cuts.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address