Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Do you have a source to verify this claim?
For future reference, if you make any claims, please, cite the source so I don't have to keep asking you to.
51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
For future reference, if you make any claims, please, cite the source so I don't have to keep asking you to.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"Conclusion
Corporate tax reform is a topic of discussion among policy analysts and policymakers. The proposed options range from broadening the tax base/lowering the rates to moving to a territorial system with low tax rates to outright elimination of the corporate income tax. Given that the corporate income tax serves several important functions, outright elimination of the tax is ill advised. The justification for lowering the corporate tax rate is that it will increase economic growth.
In 2012, corporate profits (before- and after-tax) as a share of national income were at a postwar high. Corporate profits were relatively high throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, and fell throughout the 1960s and 1970s to reach a low in 1982. Since then, corporate profits reversed course and have generally been rising to their current postwar high.
The top statutory corporate tax rate has been falling since the early 1950s. The top corporate tax rate was 52 percent throughout the Eisenhower administration—17 percentage points higher than the current top rate of 35 percent. U.S. GDP grew by almost 4 percent annually in the 1950s compared with a 1.8 percent growth rate in the 2000s. On the surface, it would appear that more robust economic growth is associated with higher corporate tax rates. Further analysis, however, finds no evidence that either the statutory top corporate tax rate or the effective marginal tax rate on capital income is correlated with real GDP growth.".
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-and-economic-growth/
Exactly like I said
Corporate tax reform is a topic of discussion among policy analysts and policymakers. The proposed options range from broadening the tax base/lowering the rates to moving to a territorial system with low tax rates to outright elimination of the corporate income tax. Given that the corporate income tax serves several important functions, outright elimination of the tax is ill advised. The justification for lowering the corporate tax rate is that it will increase economic growth.
In 2012, corporate profits (before- and after-tax) as a share of national income were at a postwar high. Corporate profits were relatively high throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, and fell throughout the 1960s and 1970s to reach a low in 1982. Since then, corporate profits reversed course and have generally been rising to their current postwar high.
The top statutory corporate tax rate has been falling since the early 1950s. The top corporate tax rate was 52 percent throughout the Eisenhower administration—17 percentage points higher than the current top rate of 35 percent. U.S. GDP grew by almost 4 percent annually in the 1950s compared with a 1.8 percent growth rate in the 2000s. On the surface, it would appear that more robust economic growth is associated with higher corporate tax rates. Further analysis, however, finds no evidence that either the statutory top corporate tax rate or the effective marginal tax rate on capital income is correlated with real GDP growth.".
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-and-economic-growth/
Exactly like I said
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
What happens to the 95% of computers that currently run on Windows?
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
The sad truth is the Government needs to raise taxes across the board to something like 50 percent tax on a 5 year plan first year 15 percent hike second year 25 percent hike and 4th year remainding 10 percent for total of 50 percent for everyone stop stimulating the economy and man up to debt its everyones responsibility to pay it back suck it up for 5 years with bad times to end up being ahead some in time only way to do it
declare bankruptcy and walk away from this and USA will be no longer USA it will spread like cancer in every corner of USA you will smell death..
Here is a better idea put all assets made in the marijuana industry and put it into the debt let the stoners pave the way to real debt freedom
declare bankruptcy and walk away from this and USA will be no longer USA it will spread like cancer in every corner of USA you will smell death..
Here is a better idea put all assets made in the marijuana industry and put it into the debt let the stoners pave the way to real debt freedom
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
shit think about it 573 million made in pot sales take 1/2 of that and pay off debt in how long once your debt free holy fuck like will be good that dollar will in fact buy you something ,, houses will be with in owning etc
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
holy shit i just found this now put in there 25,000 dollars to invest today and to take out 20 years from now ??? am i correct in saying that the 25,000 will be in fact 22,000 in the year 2035 when you take it out wow
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/investment-calculator/
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/investment-calculator/
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
This is what Barak Obama said before he dumped 2 trillion dollars into the economy with no effect. How many more trillions do you want to try before admitting it doesnt work? Oh right, it isnt your money so why do you care how much right?
Not GOP
Well-Known Member
I'd say about 6 trillion more. Once the national debt hits 25 trillion, we'll be in hot water
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Show me a source for this claim
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"In January 2001, CBO’s baseline projections showed a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion for
the 2002–2011 period. The actual results have differed from those projections because of
subsequent policy changes, economic developments that differed from CBO’s forecast, and
other factors. As a result, the federal government ran deficits from 2002 through 2011. The
cumulative deficit over the 10-year period amounted to $6.1 trillion—a swing of $11.7 trillion
from the January 2001 projections." -Congressional Budget Office
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41463
"In June 2012, the Congressional Budget Office summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.
The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011, the budget office said, could be attributed largely to:
$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
$1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
$1.5 trillion – Increased non-defense discretionary spending
$1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
$1.4 trillion – Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
$0.9 trillion – Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)
The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:
Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#2001_vs._2011
The stimulus was $600 billion, the spending gap was $2.9 trillion. You haven't done the math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
the 2002–2011 period. The actual results have differed from those projections because of
subsequent policy changes, economic developments that differed from CBO’s forecast, and
other factors. As a result, the federal government ran deficits from 2002 through 2011. The
cumulative deficit over the 10-year period amounted to $6.1 trillion—a swing of $11.7 trillion
from the January 2001 projections." -Congressional Budget Office
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41463
"In June 2012, the Congressional Budget Office summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.
The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011, the budget office said, could be attributed largely to:
$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
$1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
$1.5 trillion – Increased non-defense discretionary spending
$1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
$1.4 trillion – Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
$0.9 trillion – Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)
The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:
Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#2001_vs._2011
The stimulus was $600 billion, the spending gap was $2.9 trillion. You haven't done the math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The deficit you're referring to came about under president Bush's economic policy, genius
Not exactly something I support
Not exactly something I support
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
$600 billion surplus in 2000 to a $5.6 trillion deficit in 2008, but it's all Omaba's fault...
The fact he cut the deficit more than any other president in American history proves Keynesian economics works
The fact he cut the deficit more than any other president in American history proves Keynesian economics works
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
With ever increasing interest payments on the debt...
Reducing a deficit doesn't mean your not in the shit, it just means you're sinking slower.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Sinking slower is better than sinking faster, right, retard?
Had we been riding that $600 billion dollar surplus that W. fucked up for everyone we wouldn't even be having this conversation
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
So was it Bush or the disaster in the sub-prime housing market?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Both. 65/35 (Clinton and congressional democrats take part in that 65)
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure it was people getting loans they couldn't afford on properties with massively over-inflated values.
But why listen to reason?
Typical lefty trope "BLAME BOOOOOOOSH!"
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
wow, the labor force starts to decline a mere 65-70 years after the baby boom.The labor participation rate has some bearing upon this Obama induced calamity.
Thanks, Obama!
Now go ahead and blame Bush for this catastrophe....
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
what are the fucking odds of that?
dumb. so dumb.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Yeah, as a combined effort to give Barak Obama some control over the economy even before Bush left office. I guess you forgot the part where they split the spending in half. Bush should never have bailed out the banks. He admitted breaking capitalism to save capitalism which is one of the more stupid things he said. However, when the shit hits the fan, the politicians throw out the rules and do whatever suits their best interests the American people be damned...
And the deficits and debt I am referring to have happened long since you and I were born but you dont seem to take anything into account pre-Bush...
You are getting fucked by both sides and screaming how it feels so much better when the Democrats do it...
Maybe in 30 years you will figure it out, maybe not... You are going to be miserable until it happens though.