Tax Cuts or Energy Solutions

from JoeUser Forums



To illustrate the failure of the current policies lets look at two alternate ways to use $150 Billion tax dollars each year.

Bush wants the tax cuts for his wealthy supporters made permanent. The reduction in the tax rates on the TWO TOP income brackets and the reduced dividend taxes rate cost the treasury about $150 Billion EVERY Year in tax revenue compared with restoring the rates on just the wealthiest tax payers to pre 2000 rates.

The Bush plan will have the money go to people who do not need the added money and who will not spend most of that $150 billion.

Consider this alternative. Restore the Tax rates on the wealthy and use the added federal revenue to fund tax credits to install geothermal, solar conversion or wind generation equipment on their homes or small bisinesses to reduce the demand for foreign energy. This plan would also create jobs and added profits for the companies installing and manufacturing this new equipment. When the equipment was installed, the homeowner would have lower energy bills which would enable them to increase their non energy purchases to help stimulate economic activity. We would lower our purchase of foreign oil and gas.

Which plan is better for our economy? Which plan would benefit the most people? Which plan would help move us away from dependence on foreign oil?

Which plan do you think Bush and his GOP leadership in Congress will support?
politics
6,190 views 19 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Consider this alternative. Restore the Tax rates on the wealthy and use the added federal revenue to fund tax credits to install geothermal, solar conversion or wind generation equipment on their homes or small bisinesses to reduce the demand for foreign energy. This plan would also create jobs and added profits for the companies installing and manufacturing this new equipment. When the equipment was installed, the homeowner would have lower energy bills which would enable them to increase their non energy purchases to help stimulate economic activity. We would lower our purchase of foreign oil and gas.


Col, I agree and many people will agree with you but the majority don't want to see windfarms, etc out their window. But again instead of ranting and blaming Bush like an impotent jerk get out there and EDUCATE. That's how you change people. Your rants roll off the backs of people like the dirt in the shower.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
What I want is a leader that provides solutions that work not the kinds of policies that Bush and the GOP have been passing into law. I want a LEADER that when a policy is not working to solve the issue at hand will admit they were wrong and try another approach not just STAY THE COURSE that has not worked.

Wind farms may not be appropriate in many locations but geothermal and solar panels should dot offend anyone.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, yes, that's the thing to do. Tax the wealthy more, so that in order to make the same profit they have to charge more for their products. I'm sure you won't mind a bit when gas hits $5.00 a gallon after the tax is passed on to the consumer. You realize that a huge chunk of every gallon of gas we buy is ALREADY taxed and sent to your dishonest govenment to waste.

If you were anyone else I'd say you hadn't thought this through. You, though, know when you are wrong, you just don't care. Even when it is patently false, mindless scattergun propaganda catches a few people's eye here and there. Your points only have to be as intelligent as the people you are shooting for. It's sheep season, evidently.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just return to the tax rates before 2000. There was no such thing as you suggest during the 1990’s. In fact the wealthy as a group did better during the 1990's with the higher tax rates then at any other time and better then any other group.

Show me how the use of the $150 Billion in my suggestion would not benefit this country far more then giving it to those that DO NOT NEED A THING! Do not just tell me how horrible returning to the pre 2000 tax rate would be. Terrible for WHOM?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The demand for oil in the 1990's was a fraction of what it is now. China's demand as doubled since then, and it is set to double again in the next 10 years. As a commodity there is more demand on oil now and the supply won't get any better.

Geothermal power for our homes? In the US? Are you serious? None of the alternative energy sources you cite are cheaper than oil to implement. $150 billion wouldn't even get the ball rolling. 150 billion wouldn't switch the homes in the California to an alternative power source, much less the entire nation. It would cost billions to think it over, tough, so more Democrat holes to throw money down.

The idea that raising taxes on a company won't mean higher prices is idiotic. Of course they'll pass that right on to us. Then, you'll just let the government soak the tax money making studies on what we already know... that there is no real alternative to oil right now that can be implemented without major damage to our economy.

Will we have geothermal cars, too? Or solar cars? You can sit and delight in your musings about a green future and the good old Clinton days, but this is a different world, and Bush didn't cause China and other nations to start sucking back oil.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I did not say increase taxed on companies I said return to the pre 2000 tax rate on the top two income groups. The only tax for companies would be for excess profits from oil. They are using the increase in oil prices to recover their added cost plus adding more to the cost which in increasing their profits. Why should oil companies be able to increase their prices more then the added cost of oil? If they were simply recovering their added cost their profits would not be increasing like we see.

Bush is tied to big business and the wealthy and will sacrifice the welfare of the majority to adopt policies to protect his base the WEALTHY
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we use less oil and gas to heat our homes and generate electric at the point of use we will not need to generate as much and use less oil and gas. WE need other solutions as well. I was just pointing out there are far more effective ways to solve our problems then just giving the wealthy tax cuts!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
You can't differentiate between the personal profits and the "excess profits" and what will be passed on to us. It is all passed on to us. When the money starts slowing for stockholders and demand grows, they raise prices, welcome to reality.

"Why should oil companies be able to increase their prices more then the added cost of oil?"


Take a high school economics course. It's called the free market. Demand determines the price, not your lofty ideals. Letting the government fix the price isn't any more intelligent than letting companies fixing the prices. It's no surprise that you'd espouse a soviet-era control on business, fascist that you are.

Their profits right now are pre-emptive. They are getting what they can while they can because things are going to get very lean in terms of energy in the next couple of decades. The money they are raking in now is going to be headed East soon, our era as the main oil consumer is over.

Bush is tied to big business and the wealthy and will sacrifice the welfare of the majority to adopt policies to protect his base the WEALTHY


And your name will forever be tied to Bush, like a tick in his ear. Enjoy the legacy. You are the one espousing government protectionism and dismissing the free market. You'd just replace the corporate fatcats with the congressional fatcats once they got their thumbs in managing the industry through punitive taxation.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Three great Non-answers

Take a high school economics course. It's called the free market.

There is NO Free market in the oil business. We have a product that is ESSENTIAL and ALL THE companies act the same and thus the benefits of competition are not operating. Even if there is no DIRECT collusion, ALL the oil companies use the same tactics which has resulted in soaring profits, higher prices to the consumer WHO HAS NO ALTERNATIVE which proves in this case FREE MARKET COMPETITION in not working.

You can't differentiate between the personal profits and the "excess profits" and what will be passed on to us.


Please explain why in the 1990's when Oil profits were FAR lower then today we had LOWER GAS PRICES? If the oil companies knew that if they increased their retail prices MORE then to JUST compensate for their HIGHER oil costs that the added profits will be taxed away, there will be NO REASON to increase prices MORE then to cover the added cost of OIL. The oil companies are not only recovering their added costs but increasing their profit which means the pump price to EVERY person and EVERY business is higher then to JUST deal with the supply/demand issue around the world oil price.

As for personal income (they are not all personal profits since they may be just very high income) we are talking about where does the government get the resources needed to support the system i.e. defense, homeland security, entitlements, interest on the debt etc. Since we are spending $600 Billion per year MORE then we Tax, we must have a combination of spending cuts (please do not make a fool of yourself by telling us we can cut $600 billion from the budget) and increased tax revenue. The most effective source for that added tax revenue needed to balance the budget is from the higher income Americans. The higher income group paying higher taxes will have only a MARGINAL impact on spending as compared with tax increases on the middle income tax payers.


And your name will forever be tied to Bush, like a tick in his ear. Enjoy the legacy. You are the one espousing government protectionism and dismissing the free market.


The FREE MARKET is a good thing when it works. Anyone that believes the current Oil industry is the FREE MARKET working does not understand the concept. Anyone that believed ENRON was the FREE MARKET is likewise dreaming. Say what you want, the data is now available, Bush and the GOP leadership in Congress has managed to shift the wealth to the top 10% and it has come mostly from the middle income working family. As for the bottom 25% of the economic ladder, their wages had stood still while their costs for food, medical and energy has gone up just like for the other 75% of the population. The low income families are FAR worse off. Bush continues to tell us how GDP, corporate profits and the stock market are doing so well under his policies. NONE of that improves the lives of MOST of Middle income Americans and NONE of the low income Americans. Thus, Bush and his policies have succeeded in helping those that NEED NO HELP at the expense of everyone else. Below are the last two paragraphs from the preface of my new book, George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich which is now available at bookstores:


On October 20, 2004 George W. Bush at a diamond–studded fund raiser in New York gave us a very clear look through the window of his soul. Mr. Bush said, “This is an impressive crowd – the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.”

George W. Bush was not seeking the highest office in our land to be president of all the people, not even the majority, just his base –the wealthy. The policies he has implemented with the cooperation of the GOP in Congress have benefited his rich base at the expense of the middle income and poor of our country.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, abuses can and do occur in the free market. There's nothing about the concept of the free market that requires trade to be equitable and fair. You would just replace one set of thugs with another, the only difference being the thugs you prefer lie their way into office and bleed people dry under threat of jail as opposed to taking part in business openly.

You villify companies that charge based upon demand. You know as well as I do that people would pay 5 or 6 dollars a gallon for gas if they needed to. On the other hand you want to give money to extortionists who say "give us your money for the greater good, or we'll put you in jail". Then they just spend it on whatever they like with little regard for the greater good.

So, frankly, I trust the free market, however corrupt it may seem to you. At the very least the money stays in circulation through investment. Even if it is sitting in the bank, it is being loaned to people like me and you, and invested in other businesses. You'd have it trapped in a federal hole wasted on pipe dreams.

You're a liar that spreads propaganda for other liars. I trust greedy people, because I know where they stand. Backstabbing folks who pretend to represent me and then make themselves wealthy giving speeches and pretending to serve the "greater good" need not apply, in my opinion. They get paid well enough under the table by lobbyists and special interests. They don't need any more of our money.

You can pretend that taxes on the rich just effect the rich, but you aren't fooling anyone. Those wealthy people employ us, and set the prices for the items we buy. When we cut into what they have to spend, we create problems for ourselves. You and I don't have the excess money to benefit society through commerce and investment, and the rich do. You'd take that away and give it to dishonest politicians.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
how come you constantly ignore that we are generating more tax money after the so called taxcuts for rich folks than we were before tax breaks?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

That is called inflation. The fact remains, we are and have been SPENDING between $500 and $600 BILLION more THEN WE tax EVERY YEAR. This is not a one year event we have created a structural deficit that must be corrected. Bush has no intent in stopping the hemorrhaging of the people's money. WE BORROW money so we can give the wealthy tax cuts and then we all pay interest on that money we gave to the rich. Please explain the logic of that policy. There is no surplus to return to the tax payers like Bush claimed in 2001.

What our leaders need is not High school economics but graduate school economics coupled with the real like experience of making the budget balance. I do not know what Bush learned at Harvard but he has not used the most basic financial management or sense in running the financial affairs of this country. He inherited a BALANCED Budget and turned intro a $600 Billion dollar per deficit with no end in sight. He will have turned the $230 Billion in annual interest we must pay to $500 Billion by 2010.

I have both a formal graduate education in Business and many years of real life experience meeting the financial targets set for me and balancing the budget EVERY YEAR. In my last 12 years I was the COO for a $120 Million dollar per year operation and balanced the budget EVERY YEAR!

I also believe in free enterprise with the oversight needed to prevent the things we are seeing today with the oil companies and the abuses with companies like ENRON.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK, look at the numbers here. Bush's tax cuts actually brought in an INCREASE in revenue. But that's immaterial; all that matters is that we PUNISH the rich for providing jobs and opportunity for Americans. How DARE they!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
t so fast


The tax cuts have increased revenue but the NET impact is that we LOST MORE tax revenue then we gained from the growth associated with the tax cuts.

The tax cuts to the middle income families is SPENT to the extent of just about 100% and as such helps stimulate growth, jobs and creates more tax revenue. The tax cuts to the wealthy are for the most part NOT SPENT. That money either goes into the increased NET WORTH of the wealthy or in some cases invested in new or expanded business that does help the economy. The net impact from that portion of the tax cuts that went to the wealthy is that those tax cuts lost more in revenue then it created in NEW tax revenue from growth caused by new investment. The issue the SUPPLY SIDE people forget is that for the new investment by the wealthy to produce more NET revenue is the need for the masses to have the added money to purchase the goods and services from the new investment. If they simply buy from the new company at the expense of an existing company there is no or little gain.

The average tax rate paid from federal income Taxes is about 25%. Thus for EVERY dollar CUT BY LOWERING TAXES that tax cut must generate FOUR dollars in NEW TAXABLE INCOME just to offset the loss in tax revenue. To result in a NET GAIN the tax cut must generate 5 plus times the amount of NEW TAXABLE INCONE (not just gross sales but taxable profits) to do the job.

The Bush tax cuts have resulted in a NET LOSS and along with the increased spending has caused us to go from a BALANCED BUDGET in 2000 to a $600 Billion loss last year. The simple fact is we MUST have a COMBINATION of spending CUTS and TAX INCREASES that total $600 Billion to just balance the budget. Then to begin repaying the debt we would need even more revenue and spending cuts to begin producing a REAL SURPLUS and use that SURPLUS to begin paying down the debt. At $ 200 Billion real surplus per year, it would take 30 years to repay our national debt!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The tax cuts have increased revenue but the NET impact is that we LOST MORE tax revenue then we gained from the growth associated with the tax cuts.


This sentence makes absolutely NO sense what so ever. If you "increase" revenue then you "automatically" get MORE tax revenue. That is simple math. You don't even have to go to economics to get that. Increased revenue means there are MORE tax dollars coming in. Can't spin this any other way. What do think guys...am I right or wrong on this?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
What an idiot

For the simple minded let's put it this way. We cut taxes by three dollars and added ONE dollar of increased tax revenue from the economic growth the tax cut produced. We spent three dollars to get one back. Just like feeding the slot machines.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
What an idiot

For the simple minded let's put it this way. We cut taxes by three dollars and added ONE dollar of increased tax revenue from the economic growth the tax cut produced. We spent three dollars to get one back. Just like feeding the slot machines.


"I'm" the idiot? "You're" the one with math problems not me.
Bush's tax cuts equaled approx 5% per annum.

2000 5.9
2001 3.2
2002 3.4
2003 4.8
2004 7.0
2005 6.4


Taxable revenue in the US has gone up approx 3.2% to 7% per year with most on the high side of 5%. So tell me again how we cut $3 and only got $1 back.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
How utterly slow can you be Col? "WE" got three dollars back, and the government got their dollar. You can sit there and give the truth the hand, but you can't convince people with a brain that the stockholders and owners of companies aren't "we".

Money in the government does little for anyone. MOney in the system is productive, even if it is sitting in the bank or in your stock portfolio. You'd just rather steal our money and send it to people who will hand it back and forth and build roads that go nowhere.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Let's complete the story. The annual budget deficit in 2000 was ZERO. We had a balanced budget. The tax revenue was equal to our spending. In 2005 we spent $600 Billion MORE then the tax revenue.

In 2000 the TOTAL National Debt was 5.7 Trillion in 2006 it is $8.3 Trillion heading for $10 Trillion by 2008 according to Bush.

The interest the tax payers pay on our debt in 2000 was $230 Billion. It is over $350 Billion today heading for $500 Billion by 2010.

I agree with the tax cuts for the middle income workers which is the source of the increased revenue you indicate. It is the tax cuts to the wealthy, which is about 1/2 the total that is not producing a positive return.

What I have proposed is make the tax cuts for the middle income permanent BECAUSE THAT HELPS SPENDING.

Return the tax rates on the wealthy to the pre 2000 rates to help balance the budget with little impact on spending.


Bakerstreet

Drmiler’s numbers show 3 to 1 return on taxable revenue but it takes a 4 to 1 to just replace the lost tax revenue from the cuts. The overall rate paid by all taxpayers to federal income taxes is just about 25%. Thus to just equal a dollar of lost revenue from the tax cuts we must generate 4 dollars of NEW TAXABLE INCOME times 25% = the one dollar in lost tax revenue. Studies by OMB showed that the NET impact of the Bush tax cuts through 2004 was that they ADDED $1.2 Trillion to the national debt. Here are two facts that all your BS can not change:

The NET impact from the tax cuts is negative i.e. we gave up more tax revenue from the cuts then we gained in new INCOME. i.e.we lost $1.2 Trillion between 2001-2004.

We are spending $600 Billion every year MORE then we TAX.