Pelosi- More Taxes

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by buckman

Not sure how you come up with the 60/70 year thing though

This graph shows taxes relative to gdp, which is one of the clearest ways to compare year to year, decade to decade. Blue is fed tax, red state, green business. There are many ways it can be compared, from total tax burden to effective rates. They all come out pretty much the same. Any honest comparison shows that taxes are effectively on the low end of where they have been since 1940. The gdp graph can't give you specific tax rates though. For example, taxes are lower now than they were a couple years ago, but as a percent of gdp, they are a slightly higher percent due to a decrease in gdp from the recession. This website has a whole pile of graphs, which give a pretty good overview of past values and projections of the near future. The analysis of the data is somewhat biased though, and makes a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be true.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

[buckman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

This graph shows taxes relative to gdp, which is one of the clearest ways to compare year to year, decade to decade. Blue is fed tax, red state, green business. There are many ways it can be compared, from total tax burden to effective rates. They all come out pretty much the same. Any honest comparison shows that taxes are effectively on the low end of where they have been since 1940. The gdp graph can't give you specific tax rates though. For example, taxes are lower now than they were a couple years ago, but as a percent of gdp, they are a slightly higher percent due to a decrease in gdp from the recession. This website has a whole pile of graphs, which give a pretty good overview of past values and projections of the near future. The analysis of the data is somewhat biased though, and makes a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be true.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

Thanks Zimmy

[justplugit]

Don't need to read a chart to know that raising taxes
would mean more Govt. growth, like adding another 147,000
Govt. jobs since stimulus.

Cut current Govt. 10% across the board and use tax increase
to pay down the debt only, and I have no problem with it.

After 3+ years we still don't have a budget. Imagine a household
or business without a budget? Simple, ya can't spend more than you have
without going broke.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Cut current Govt. 10% across the board and use tax increase
to pay down the debt only, and I have no problem with it.

Absolutely the antithesis of what an economist would recommend in times of recession or early in a recovery. In spirit, you are right though that the business of cutting taxes and increasing spending at the same time, as was done in the 2000's, is terrible for short term and long term economy.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Cut current Govt. 10% across the board and use tax increase
to pay down the debt only, and I have no problem with it.

Absolutely the antithesis of what an economist would recommend in times of recession or early in a recovery.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Absolutely the antithesis of what an economist would recommend in times of recession or early in a recovery.

First thing would be to have a budget.

Second,cutting 10% across the board could be done on waste alone.

Third, expanding Govt. which involved hiring 147,000 new Govt. workers, where taxpayers have to pay for salaries, benefits and retirement, for a bunch of people who's job it is to spend more tax payer money doesn't make short or long term sense.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Third, expanding Govt. which involved hiring 147,000 new Govt. workers, where taxpayers have to pay for salaries, benefits and retirement, for a bunch of people who's job it is to spend more tax payer money doesn't make short or long term sense.

Do you know what that 147,000 actually means? Is it new jobs that require new workers? Is it someone left the post office and a new person was hired, someone retired from the foreign service and a replacement was hired? There is so much assumption and misinformation spread that the truth is almost never the way things are presented. I would bet you $10,000 that there is no way the government was expanded to add 147,000 new jobs. That sounds totally like the biased lame stream right wing media misinformation machine I will look into it, but I am guessing you were duped.

[zimmy]

Here is a start, but this is from a year ago. As I suspected, though.

"House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) claimed this morning at a press conference that "under President Obama, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs." That's at least a 344 percent overstatement. In reality, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the federal workforce has grown by only 58,000 jobs since Obama took office (and by just 25,000 jobs since his economic policies began to impact the economy). Furthermore, Boehner's implication that government workers are thriving in a recession does not jibe with the larger picture. While the private sector has added 381,000 net jobs since Obama policies took effect, overall government employment has fallen by 309,000 jobs over the same period."

Speaker Boehner Is Wrong About "200,000 New Federal Jobs" In Obama Era | Political Correction

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

That sounds totally like the biased lame stream right wing media misinformation machine

LOL, as you use a year + old article by Political Correctness, the arm of the
left wing progressive Media Matters.

The CNN article said the Fed employment increase was not from
Obama alone, I never said that.

Right now the latest offical Dept of Labor statistics only go to 2010.
We will have to see what the true # is when 2011 is posted.