Most Important Graphs of 2011

Pharm- I do not think the conclusiuons you are drawing are supported by the graphs.

Concerning the graph on tax rates, all it shows is the top bracket. It doesn't show what the income level was required to get into the top bracket nor does it say how many people actually paid at the top bracket. We could set a top bracket tomorrow of 90% (the highest in the graph) for income over $12 M and it wouldn't change one thing. Everyone would change their compensation to stay below that rate.

Further, what were the rest of the rates during that time and how many people paid at those rates? If the year in which the top rate was 85% what percentage of the entire population paid federal income taxes? I can assure you it was more than the 50% we have today.

How about we take that graph and, based on your intepretation of it, we have a top rate of 90% and the next rate for everyone else at 5%. How ill revenues and job growth look then?

As to the other graph you liked, if I read it correctly, even if the Bush tax cuts are extended, it is projecting very close to revenue of 18% of gdp which is what we have historically averaged. It is amazing to me that with all of the advancements in technology and the advancements in productivity per employee in virtually every single industry, that our govt has not realized any gains.

Further, if that graph really is accurate, why wouldn't you and the dems be arguing to let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire. That actually gets us to a projected revenue level that is HIGHER than the spending average for the past 40 years. I think that would be great. In one act, we get revenue to a point where it needs to be and all of the focus can be on getting spending below 20% of GDP. A balanced budget.

To me, the absolute best idea is to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the welathiest (earnings over $1 M annually only) to approximately 39%. Then institute a national sales tax of 2%. Now everyone has skin in the game and our revenue would be at approximately 20% of GDP. Force spending there also and the budget is balanced.
 
We need to kill the EITC at the same time so people paying nothing are not getting "refunds". How insane is this for a country in the red?
 
The fact that you post the second graph (which as has been mentioned proves absolutely nothing other than that two things happened at the same time) along with a quote from the Director of the American Worker Project, Center for American Progress, and then have the audacity to claim that this isn't partisan is pretty hilarious.

Comparing stimulus packages doesn't seem to make much sense unless it's accompanied by effectiveness of said packages.

The percentage of green power job growth is pretty meaningless as well without context. How much was the actual increase? Where did the industry start? It's no secret that newer businesses grow more quickly since they're earlier in the life cycle. That does not mean that growth can be sustained - but if it does, it grows through market forces.
 
Hornpharmd, I would refer you to the Reagan revolution, with a net increase of 21 million jobs and a dramatic decrease in the top tax rates.
 
This is part of the answer to our Health Care conundrum.

Decouple Health Insurance from the employment sector. Other than the 'perk' incentive it used to be and inertia, there is no reason for this to be an employment driven event. It should be treated the same as any other insurance (home, car, life). it is a seperate decision and your job decisions don't effect your ability to have continuity in care.

You make a decision based on what is best for your lifestyle and your wallet.

It skews both markets(health insurance and employment market) when the employer does the negotiating for hundreds or thousands of employees.
 
To my reading of the posts we have agreed (as do most Americans) that our current debt/spending trajectories are unsustainable.

What we seem to debate is the cause (too much spending, not enough receipts). Receipts have gone up over the last 70 years as a percent of GDP so receipts are not the problem IMO. Expenditures are, but they most certainly aren't the sole domain of the democrats. Republicans are just as responsible as Democrats for our current predicament.

Tax rates don't drive the economy. They don't drive business decisions by executives. The perceived ability to generate a return on investment does that. Taxes are a part of the decision, but a small part.

The recent Republican about face on expenditures is political posturing. They are no more likely to give up their favorite (vote getting) programs than Dems.

Entitlements need substantial cuts but so does every Republican pet project.

IMO taxes should stay where they are at(sans tax cuts) until we get the defecit/spending in order. A stronger financial position for the US translates to a better economic environment for business owners.
 
lack of Congress doing their job. i would research this process a bit further and look at what powers Congress has and what powers the executive branch has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top