Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Andylusion]

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

Left-winger: "your evidence and citations are nothing more than you saying 'nuh-uh', and just because you cite facts, doesn't mean you know what you are talking about!"

Stupid is believing that tax cuts actually increase revenues while tax increases reduce them.

Stupid is being confronted with documented empirical evidence, and then trying to insult other people for believing the documented evidence.

 

[danielpalos]

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

Left-winger: "your evidence and citations are nothing more than you saying 'nuh-uh', and just because you cite facts, doesn't mean you know what you are talking about!"

Stupid is believing that tax cuts actually increase revenues while tax increases reduce them.

Stupid is being confronted with documented empirical evidence, and then trying to insult other people for believing the documented evidence.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

Left-winger: "your evidence and citations are nothing more than you saying 'nuh-uh', and just because you cite facts, doesn't mean you know what you are talking about!"

Stupid is believing that tax cuts actually increase revenues while tax increases reduce them.

Stupid is being confronted with documented empirical evidence, and then trying to insult other people for believing the documented evidence.

Your "evidence" was a story about a state and municiple tax increases that have nothing to do with federal taxes.

 

[Flash]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

That is like asking if you are you affected by Tony Soprano's organization crime.

Not only is the thievery immoral but taxation hurts the economy.

The better question would be:

Are you a filthy ass welfare queen that thinks you are entitled to the money that other people make just because you are alive?

 

[Andylusion]

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

Left-winger: "your evidence and citations are nothing more than you saying 'nuh-uh', and just because you cite facts, doesn't mean you know what you are talking about!"

Stupid is believing that tax cuts actually increase revenues while tax increases reduce them.

Stupid is being confronted with documented empirical evidence, and then trying to insult other people for believing the documented evidence.

Your "evidence" was a story about a state and municiple tax increases that have nothing to do with federal taxes.

So magically the same effects won't happen.... because it is federal? And magically it can't happen with federal taxes.... why? Because it doesn't fit your ideology?

You really are one dumb human being.

Wealth tax forces 12,000 millionaires A YEAR out of France | Daily Mail Online

Wealth tax in France, aimed at rich..... results... 12,000 wealthy people a year leaving the country.

Same happened when Castro got control over Cuba, which resulted in a standard of living on par with the US, becoming a 3rd world country.

Same happened in Venezuela, with the poor starting to eat dogs and cats for dinner.

The same has happened everywhere you people are in control.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course some 0.5% or so always default right away, but that does not cause a real estate debacle or banks to default.
The major problem in 2008 was from massive ARM payment charge increases.

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.
That was exactly and entirely what caused the whole economic problem!

Certainly you are free to disagree, as some others do as well.
But read this.

The Road to Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.

Nope HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages.

Thanks for the link.

Glass-Steagall was designed to stabilize the U.S. financial system by separating commercial banks from the capital markets and by prohibiting nonbanks from accepting deposits.

Weird, not a word about mortgages.

Wrong. Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures. Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall. Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them. It is what their legal purpose was, once the banks created these toxic mortgage derivatives.

Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures.

And yet, not a single word about mortgages.

Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall.

Banks didn't lose trillions on derivatives, banks lost trillions on mortgages.

Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them.

HUD didn't have to force Fannie and Freddie to buy crap, but starting in the early 1990s, HUD forced them to buy at first, 30% crappy mortgages and by 2007, HUD was forcing them to buy 55% crappy mortgages.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

It is what their legal purpose was

Before Clinton, they only bought high quality, conforming loans

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans, so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

But the rest make no sense.
Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Banks did not lose any money at all.
They created deceptive ARM loans they deceptively sold to Fannie Mae, and then we people could not make the new increased payments, they defaulted and were foreclosed. The banks made a bundle years later when they sold all these foreclosures.
But in the mean time, Obama bailed them out because they did not have enough working assets any more, since there were so many defaults. Obama should not have done that. He should have either bailed out the home buyers, or let the banks go under.
It was all the fault of the banks, so they did not deserve being bailed out.

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.
HUD has nothing to do with it.
It is Congress that set up the rules.
And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.
That is the whole point of the toxic derivatives, in that they hid the details in bundles.
And no one had the authority to refuse to buy the bundles once Glass Steagall had been repealled.

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans

Is there a nicer way to say you're full of shit? Let me know.

so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

You're lying. In the early 90s HUD mandated the GSEs buy 30% subprime mortgages.
While Glass-Steagall was still in place.

Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Could you be more clueless?

Banks did not lose any money at all.

What are you smoking? Is it legal in your state?

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.
HUD has nothing to do with it.
It is Congress that set up the rules.
And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.


Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

Wow! Don't you feel like an idiot now?


​

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.
But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.
HUD defaults were extremely low around 2008, and had absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the real estate foreclosures.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures. They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure. Then they arrange to sell the foreclosures to their buddies, and make each other very wealthy, as the properties eventually bounce back to an even higher appreciation value than when originally purchased by the buyer who defaulted. Home foreclosures are almost always highly unethical, and probably should be illegal. If someone suffers some great loss of income, HUD probably should provide some sort of catastrophic relief. While the 2008 real estate bust temporarily reduced housing values, anyone who could weather that, made out big time. It was easy to pick up properties for half their actual value. And since rents went up, it was immediately possible to gain a cash flow as a landlord. That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks, looking to shift owner occupied homes into rental cash cows.

 

[Redfish]

I'll put you down as a yes.

So you made the post & can't back it up. I am not surprised.

Really? Next time you can do your own research...dumbass.

Does socialism work? A classroom experiment - The Commentator

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

What social experiment was being done here in the US like you said.

I laugh when you bring up Venezuela & ignore the ,any successes.

which socialist countries have been economic successes? Which capitalist countries have been economic failures?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

 

[Rigby5]

You seem very uninformed.
The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.
It was additional emergency funding at irregular intervals.
That is always how wars are funded.
Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

It is obvious to anyone Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion.

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

Prove it.

Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

You're wrong.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt. I already showed you the graph. It is documented general knowledge. Are you saying you do not believe Bush added $5 trillion to the national debt? If so, then I can just start ignoring you.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt.

Clearly, no one denied he added $4.9 trillion to the total public debt.

View attachment 240066

View attachment 240067

And no one denied that Obama added $9.3 trillion.

View attachment 240068
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)


Now, if you can prove your claim...…

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

We can continue.

This is not as clear as I would like it, but does indicate that previous was funding was done in a supplemental way and not through the annual budget.

Updated - The Obameter: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war

{...
Money in budgets, but supplementals aren't going away
By Lukas Pleva on Thursday, September 16th, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

At the time, we rated the promise In the Works, since Obama's budget for 2010 included the price tag for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were curious to see how things have unfolded since then.

As we said, the president's budget for 2010 included funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. On December 16, 2009, Obama signed a law which provided $101.1 billion "for operations and maintenance and military personnel requirements for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to support preparations to continue withdrawal from Iraq."

Earlier, however, in June, 2009, Obama had also signed a $105.9 billion supplemental spending bill to fund escalating military operations in the Middle East. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at the time that "this [was] the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan." We'll cut the president some slack on this one. Because of the way the budget process works, the only way for Obama to step up military efforts in his first year was via supplemental funding. The 2009 budget was approved in 2008, when Bush was still President.

Alas, it was not the last supplemental. On February 1, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged Congress to pass a $33 billion emergency legislation to fund a 30,000 troop-surge in Afghanistan. After repeated requests from Gates and months of debate, the House finally passed the measure on July 27, 2010, sending the bill to President Obama for signature.

We should also note that the White House has already released its budget for 2011. The administration is asking for $159.3 billion in war funding.

We consulted two budget experts, both of whom told us that there is nothing mischievous about using supplementals to fund an unforeseen change in military strategy. Scott Lilly from the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning public policy think tank, said that supplemental funding becomes a problem when you use it to fund initiatives that you can anticipate far in advance. By the time Obama announced the 30,000-troop surge in December 2009, he had already submitted the 2010 budget.

The final ruling is a bit tricky. Obama never actually advocated getting rid of supplementals completely. His promise was to end their abuse, and his criticism centered on using them for year-to-year funding. The 2009 supplemental was an inevitable result of the budget process, and this year's supplemental pays for the 30,000 troop-surge that Obama announced after the 2010 budget had already been submitted. Most important, funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is now included in annual budgets. We'll keep a close eye on this one going forward, but for now, this is a Promise Kept.
...}

After that, I found this one which is likely better:

{...
How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.

More fundamentally, the Bush administration masked the cost of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office. Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
...}

Thanks for the source.
I love it when someone posts a source that refutes their stupid claim

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

See the phrase "supplemental budget"? That means it is part of a budget submitted to and approved by Congress. The expense is on the books, adds to the deficit and adds to the debt.

Maybe you'll make more accurate claims in the future?

WRONG! The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental. Anything later, after the annual budget predicted expenses has been approved by congress, is NOT part of the budget and is called supplemental.

It is foolish for you to even try to say what obviously can't be true because clearly all the Bush budgets put together do not include even a tiny portion of the $5 trillion Bush is documented as having added to the national debt. And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt. As well as the fact Obama was very critical of the process of hiding debt in supplemental allocations, and was embarrassed to have to do it even once.

You clearly did not read any of the links, because they flatly state the opposite of what you now are claiming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.

Nope HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages.

Thanks for the link.

Glass-Steagall was designed to stabilize the U.S. financial system by separating commercial banks from the capital markets and by prohibiting nonbanks from accepting deposits.

Weird, not a word about mortgages.

Wrong. Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures. Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall. Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them. It is what their legal purpose was, once the banks created these toxic mortgage derivatives.

Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures.

And yet, not a single word about mortgages.

Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall.

Banks didn't lose trillions on derivatives, banks lost trillions on mortgages.

Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them.

HUD didn't have to force Fannie and Freddie to buy crap, but starting in the early 1990s, HUD forced them to buy at first, 30% crappy mortgages and by 2007, HUD was forcing them to buy 55% crappy mortgages.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

It is what their legal purpose was

Before Clinton, they only bought high quality, conforming loans

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans, so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

But the rest make no sense.
Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Banks did not lose any money at all.
They created deceptive ARM loans they deceptively sold to Fannie Mae, and then we people could not make the new increased payments, they defaulted and were foreclosed. The banks made a bundle years later when they sold all these foreclosures.
But in the mean time, Obama bailed them out because they did not have enough working assets any more, since there were so many defaults. Obama should not have done that. He should have either bailed out the home buyers, or let the banks go under.
It was all the fault of the banks, so they did not deserve being bailed out.

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.
HUD has nothing to do with it.
It is Congress that set up the rules.
And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.
That is the whole point of the toxic derivatives, in that they hid the details in bundles.
And no one had the authority to refuse to buy the bundles once Glass Steagall had been repealled.

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans

Is there a nicer way to say you're full of shit? Let me know.

so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

You're lying. In the early 90s HUD mandated the GSEs buy 30% subprime mortgages.
While Glass-Steagall was still in place.

Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Could you be more clueless?

Banks did not lose any money at all.

What are you smoking? Is it legal in your state?

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.
HUD has nothing to do with it.
It is Congress that set up the rules.
And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.


Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

Wow! Don't you feel like an idiot now?


​

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.
But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.
HUD defaults were extremely low around 2008, and had absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the real estate foreclosures.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures. They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure. Then they arrange to sell the foreclosures to their buddies, and make each other very wealthy, as the properties eventually bounce back to an even higher appreciation value than when originally purchased by the buyer who defaulted. Home foreclosures are almost always highly unethical, and probably should be illegal. If someone suffers some great loss of income, HUD probably should provide some sort of catastrophic relief. While the 2008 real estate bust temporarily reduced housing values, anyone who could weather that, made out big time. It was easy to pick up properties for half their actual value. And since rents went up, it was immediately possible to gain a cash flow as a landlord. That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks, looking to shift owner occupied homes into rental cash cows.

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.

Thanks for admitting to your previous lie.

But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.

Forcing Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions in crap didn't greatly increase incentives to write crap mortgages? Dude!

HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.

Moron, we're not talking about loans from HUD. We're talking about HUD forcing....FORCING Fannie and Freddie to buy crap.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures.

You're full of shit. Banks lose money on foreclosures.

They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure.

And in the good old days of 20% down payments, before banks started giving mortgages with 3% or 0% down payments, thanks, in part, to government pressure to lend to people with poor credit, that was enough to allow the lender to break even or make money.

That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks,

Yeah, banks deliberately lost trillions, sneaky bastards. DURR!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

Prove it.

Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

You're wrong.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt. I already showed you the graph. It is documented general knowledge. Are you saying you do not believe Bush added $5 trillion to the national debt? If so, then I can just start ignoring you.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt.

Clearly, no one denied he added $4.9 trillion to the total public debt.

View attachment 240066

View attachment 240067

And no one denied that Obama added $9.3 trillion.

View attachment 240068
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)


Now, if you can prove your claim...…

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

We can continue.

This is not as clear as I would like it, but does indicate that previous was funding was done in a supplemental way and not through the annual budget.

Updated - The Obameter: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war

{...
Money in budgets, but supplementals aren't going away
By Lukas Pleva on Thursday, September 16th, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

At the time, we rated the promise In the Works, since Obama's budget for 2010 included the price tag for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were curious to see how things have unfolded since then.

As we said, the president's budget for 2010 included funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. On December 16, 2009, Obama signed a law which provided $101.1 billion "for operations and maintenance and military personnel requirements for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to support preparations to continue withdrawal from Iraq."

Earlier, however, in June, 2009, Obama had also signed a $105.9 billion supplemental spending bill to fund escalating military operations in the Middle East. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at the time that "this [was] the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan." We'll cut the president some slack on this one. Because of the way the budget process works, the only way for Obama to step up military efforts in his first year was via supplemental funding. The 2009 budget was approved in 2008, when Bush was still President.

Alas, it was not the last supplemental. On February 1, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged Congress to pass a $33 billion emergency legislation to fund a 30,000 troop-surge in Afghanistan. After repeated requests from Gates and months of debate, the House finally passed the measure on July 27, 2010, sending the bill to President Obama for signature.

We should also note that the White House has already released its budget for 2011. The administration is asking for $159.3 billion in war funding.

We consulted two budget experts, both of whom told us that there is nothing mischievous about using supplementals to fund an unforeseen change in military strategy. Scott Lilly from the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning public policy think tank, said that supplemental funding becomes a problem when you use it to fund initiatives that you can anticipate far in advance. By the time Obama announced the 30,000-troop surge in December 2009, he had already submitted the 2010 budget.

The final ruling is a bit tricky. Obama never actually advocated getting rid of supplementals completely. His promise was to end their abuse, and his criticism centered on using them for year-to-year funding. The 2009 supplemental was an inevitable result of the budget process, and this year's supplemental pays for the 30,000 troop-surge that Obama announced after the 2010 budget had already been submitted. Most important, funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is now included in annual budgets. We'll keep a close eye on this one going forward, but for now, this is a Promise Kept.
...}

After that, I found this one which is likely better:

{...
How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.

More fundamentally, the Bush administration masked the cost of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office. Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
...}

Thanks for the source.
I love it when someone posts a source that refutes their stupid claim

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

See the phrase "supplemental budget"? That means it is part of a budget submitted to and approved by Congress. The expense is on the books, adds to the deficit and adds to the debt.

Maybe you'll make more accurate claims in the future?

WRONG! The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental. Anything later, after the annual budget predicted expenses has been approved by congress, is NOT part of the budget and is called supplemental.

It is foolish for you to even try to say what obviously can't be true because clearly all the Bush budgets put together do not include even a tiny portion of the $5 trillion Bush is documented as having added to the national debt. And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt. As well as the fact Obama was very critical of the process of hiding debt in supplemental allocations, and was embarrassed to have to do it even once.

You clearly did not read any of the links, because they flatly state the opposite of what you now are claiming.

The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental.

It was still part of a budget. Still counts toward the deficit. Still counts toward the debt.

And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt.

How does a supplemental spending bill hide debt?

 

[Rigby5]

So you made the post & can't back it up. I am not surprised.

Really? Next time you can do your own research...dumbass.

Does socialism work? A classroom experiment - The Commentator

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

What social experiment was being done here in the US like you said.

I laugh when you bring up Venezuela & ignore the ,any successes.

which socialist countries have been economic successes? Which capitalist countries have been economic failures?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

 

[g5000]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

Nope. In fact we should eliminate all tax expenditures and LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Nope. Eliminating tax expenditures would not only balance the budget, it would provide a surplus which could be used to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

 

[Rigby5]

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt. I already showed you the graph. It is documented general knowledge. Are you saying you do not believe Bush added $5 trillion to the national debt? If so, then I can just start ignoring you.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt.

Clearly, no one denied he added $4.9 trillion to the total public debt.

View attachment 240066

View attachment 240067

And no one denied that Obama added $9.3 trillion.

View attachment 240068
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)


Now, if you can prove your claim...…

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

We can continue.

This is not as clear as I would like it, but does indicate that previous was funding was done in a supplemental way and not through the annual budget.

Updated - The Obameter: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war

{...
Money in budgets, but supplementals aren't going away
By Lukas Pleva on Thursday, September 16th, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

At the time, we rated the promise In the Works, since Obama's budget for 2010 included the price tag for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were curious to see how things have unfolded since then.

As we said, the president's budget for 2010 included funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. On December 16, 2009, Obama signed a law which provided $101.1 billion "for operations and maintenance and military personnel requirements for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to support preparations to continue withdrawal from Iraq."

Earlier, however, in June, 2009, Obama had also signed a $105.9 billion supplemental spending bill to fund escalating military operations in the Middle East. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at the time that "this [was] the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan." We'll cut the president some slack on this one. Because of the way the budget process works, the only way for Obama to step up military efforts in his first year was via supplemental funding. The 2009 budget was approved in 2008, when Bush was still President.

Alas, it was not the last supplemental. On February 1, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged Congress to pass a $33 billion emergency legislation to fund a 30,000 troop-surge in Afghanistan. After repeated requests from Gates and months of debate, the House finally passed the measure on July 27, 2010, sending the bill to President Obama for signature.

We should also note that the White House has already released its budget for 2011. The administration is asking for $159.3 billion in war funding.

We consulted two budget experts, both of whom told us that there is nothing mischievous about using supplementals to fund an unforeseen change in military strategy. Scott Lilly from the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning public policy think tank, said that supplemental funding becomes a problem when you use it to fund initiatives that you can anticipate far in advance. By the time Obama announced the 30,000-troop surge in December 2009, he had already submitted the 2010 budget.

The final ruling is a bit tricky. Obama never actually advocated getting rid of supplementals completely. His promise was to end their abuse, and his criticism centered on using them for year-to-year funding. The 2009 supplemental was an inevitable result of the budget process, and this year's supplemental pays for the 30,000 troop-surge that Obama announced after the 2010 budget had already been submitted. Most important, funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is now included in annual budgets. We'll keep a close eye on this one going forward, but for now, this is a Promise Kept.
...}

After that, I found this one which is likely better:

{...
How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.

More fundamentally, the Bush administration masked the cost of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office. Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
...}

Thanks for the source.
I love it when someone posts a source that refutes their stupid claim

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

See the phrase "supplemental budget"? That means it is part of a budget submitted to and approved by Congress. The expense is on the books, adds to the deficit and adds to the debt.

Maybe you'll make more accurate claims in the future?

WRONG! The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental. Anything later, after the annual budget predicted expenses has been approved by congress, is NOT part of the budget and is called supplemental.

It is foolish for you to even try to say what obviously can't be true because clearly all the Bush budgets put together do not include even a tiny portion of the $5 trillion Bush is documented as having added to the national debt. And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt. As well as the fact Obama was very critical of the process of hiding debt in supplemental allocations, and was embarrassed to have to do it even once.

You clearly did not read any of the links, because they flatly state the opposite of what you now are claiming.

The phrase "supplemental budget" means it definitely was NOT at all part of the annual budget as planned for the year, but something unexpected that came up LATER, and had to be called supplemental.

It was still part of a budget. Still counts toward the deficit. Still counts toward the debt.

And I already linked and quoted how Bush tried to hide his massive debt.

How does a supplemental spending bill hide debt?

No, all the links were quite clear that supplemental requests for money are handled as emergencies that then the president is not liable for. It is like when Katrina hit and funds had to be allocated for that. These funds are NOT part of the budget, are not detailed, and do NOT count towards the annual deficit. All they count towards is the national debt. But LOTS of thing not in the budget count towards the national debt, such as previous interest on past national debt. The annual budget only includes a little more than half the actual federal spending in any given year. The budget is intentionally leaving major expenses out. For example, Social Security is never part of the annual budget. Supplementals hide spending because they don't list details. They are are almost like a blank check, to deliberately bypass the congressional oversight of federal spending.

I don't mind explaining this, but if you had actually read the links, you would have not needed any more explanation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

You forgot C: None of your damned business.

 

[Rigby5]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

Nope. In fact we should eliminate all tax expenditures and LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Nope. Eliminating tax expenditures would not only balance the budget, it would provide a surplus which could be used to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

{...
Tax expenditures are special provisions of the tax code such as exclusions, deductions, deferrals, credits, and tax rates that benefit specific activities or groups of taxpayers.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures often are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The US Department of the Treasury prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count standard deductions that differ by filing status as tax expenditures on the theory that exempting a basic level of income from tax and adjusting for family composition are appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

More generally, both the decision to count a provision as a tax expenditure and the measurement of its size require that OMB and JCT define a normative or baseline system against which some provisions are exceptions. Both agencies include in the baseline system provisions that allow tax rates to vary by income and that adjust for family size and composition in determining taxable income. OMB and JCT also allow for a separate tax on corporate income. The baselines of the two agencies do differ in some details, however, which contribute to modest differences in their lists of provisions and their estimates of revenue losses.
...}

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

I am not at all an expert in tax law, but these appear to be special loopholes and exemptions that likely are easily made unfair even if that was not the original intent. Subsidies are more transparent and would be a better way to promote something, instead of hiding it the tax codes, in my opinion.

 

[danielpalos]

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

Left-winger: "your evidence and citations are nothing more than you saying 'nuh-uh', and just because you cite facts, doesn't mean you know what you are talking about!"

Stupid is believing that tax cuts actually increase revenues while tax increases reduce them.

Stupid is being confronted with documented empirical evidence, and then trying to insult other people for believing the documented evidence.

Your "evidence" was a story about a state and municiple tax increases that have nothing to do with federal taxes.

So magically the same effects won't happen.... because it is federal? And magically it can't happen with federal taxes.... why? Because it doesn't fit your ideology?

You really are one dumb human being.

Wealth tax forces 12,000 millionaires A YEAR out of France | Daily Mail Online

Wealth tax in France, aimed at rich..... results... 12,000 wealthy people a year leaving the country.

Same happened when Castro got control over Cuba, which resulted in a standard of living on par with the US, becoming a 3rd world country.

Same happened in Venezuela, with the poor starting to eat dogs and cats for dinner.

The same has happened everywhere you people are in control.

The left should learn how to merely use Capitalism, for all of its capital worth in modern times.

national capitalists should try to make money via public policies;

only national socialists don't care about losing revenue via public policies.

 

[Thinker101]

Really? Next time you can do your own research...dumbass.

Does socialism work? A classroom experiment - The Commentator

Venezuela's Failed Socialist Experiment

What social experiment was being done here in the US like you said.

I laugh when you bring up Venezuela & ignore the ,any successes.

which socialist countries have been economic successes? Which capitalist countries have been economic failures?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

Its quite obvious that you have no idea what the two systems consist of or what they are based on. Stop wasting our time here.

I know exactly what all the systems are based on, and there are not just two of them, but an infinite set of principles that can be orthogonal in some ways, and coincident in others. It is not nearly as simple as you claim, and it is likely all you know about is Stalinism, which any knowledgeable person knows is a form of capitalism called "State Capitalism".
From what little you have written, likely you know nothing about economics or politics at all.
Socialism is from our genetic code in our DNA, and is what allows any social animal to survive, like Meerkats.

Socialism may be in our genetic code, Meerkats too, but they don't pay taxes. So they would have that in common with illegals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Call me simplistic, but I'm still too stuck on the immorality of "Work hard, and then give me 2/3 of everything you make" to even consider discussing the details of it as though any arrangement could make it okay.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong. Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures. Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall. Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them. It is what their legal purpose was, once the banks created these toxic mortgage derivatives.

Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures.

And yet, not a single word about mortgages.

Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall.

Banks didn't lose trillions on derivatives, banks lost trillions on mortgages.

Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them.

HUD didn't have to force Fannie and Freddie to buy crap, but starting in the early 1990s, HUD forced them to buy at first, 30% crappy mortgages and by 2007, HUD was forcing them to buy 55% crappy mortgages.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

It is what their legal purpose was

Before Clinton, they only bought high quality, conforming loans

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans, so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

But the rest make no sense.
Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Banks did not lose any money at all.
They created deceptive ARM loans they deceptively sold to Fannie Mae, and then we people could not make the new increased payments, they defaulted and were foreclosed. The banks made a bundle years later when they sold all these foreclosures.
But in the mean time, Obama bailed them out because they did not have enough working assets any more, since there were so many defaults. Obama should not have done that. He should have either bailed out the home buyers, or let the banks go under.
It was all the fault of the banks, so they did not deserve being bailed out.

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.
HUD has nothing to do with it.
It is Congress that set up the rules.
And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.
That is the whole point of the toxic derivatives, in that they hid the details in bundles.
And no one had the authority to refuse to buy the bundles once Glass Steagall had been repealled.

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans

Is there a nicer way to say you're full of shit? Let me know.

so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

You're lying. In the early 90s HUD mandated the GSEs buy 30% subprime mortgages.
While Glass-Steagall was still in place.

Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Could you be more clueless?

Banks did not lose any money at all.

What are you smoking? Is it legal in your state?

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.
HUD has nothing to do with it.
It is Congress that set up the rules.
And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.


Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

Wow! Don't you feel like an idiot now?


​

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.
But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.
HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.
HUD defaults were extremely low around 2008, and had absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the real estate foreclosures.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures. They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure. Then they arrange to sell the foreclosures to their buddies, and make each other very wealthy, as the properties eventually bounce back to an even higher appreciation value than when originally purchased by the buyer who defaulted. Home foreclosures are almost always highly unethical, and probably should be illegal. If someone suffers some great loss of income, HUD probably should provide some sort of catastrophic relief. While the 2008 real estate bust temporarily reduced housing values, anyone who could weather that, made out big time. It was easy to pick up properties for half their actual value. And since rents went up, it was immediately possible to gain a cash flow as a landlord. That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks, looking to shift owner occupied homes into rental cash cows.

Yes of course HUD had been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to encourage more low income, owner occupied housing.

Thanks for admitting to your previous lie.

But that had NOTHING at all to do with the 2008 real estate collapse.

Forcing Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions in crap didn't greatly increase incentives to write crap mortgages? Dude!

HUD loans are very hard to get, are very well investigated ahead of time, and have an incredibly LOW default rate.

Moron, we're not talking about loans from HUD. We're talking about HUD forcing....FORCING Fannie and Freddie to buy crap.

And you seem to not understand how banks make money. They greatly profit from foreclosures.

You're full of shit. Banks lose money on foreclosures.

They essentially get to keep the down payment and all the money payed in over the years before the foreclosure.

And in the good old days of 20% down payments, before banks started giving mortgages with 3% or 0% down payments, thanks, in part, to government pressure to lend to people with poor credit, that was enough to allow the lender to break even or make money.

That is why real estate busts like this are deliberately caused by people like banks,

Yeah, banks deliberately lost trillions, sneaky bastards. DURR!

Again you are lying.
HUD had nothing to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac having to buy toxic derivatives.
That was the repeal of Glass Steagall that did that.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already required by law to buy what ever the banks sold them.
It was up to legislation like Glass Steagall to prevent banks from trying to sell junk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Almost NEVER does a bank lose a cent on foreclosures.
The bank gets the property at much less than full price, not only because of the down payment and monthly payments made up until then, but the property appreciates in general over time, even if there slight temporary devaluation.
In general, foreclosures are extremely profitable to banks, and that is why there have been so many attempts are trying to regulate this obvious potential abuse by banks. But clearly 2008 was a total failure of bank regulation, that allowed banks to commit wholesale fraud against buyers, which made trillions in undeserved profits for banks. Banks did not at all lose money over the 2008 real estate market collapse. Otherwise they would not have deliberately caused it by deliberately causing the defaults with high ARM increases and flooding the market with foreclosed homes. They could easily instead of accepted the same old payments, without jacking them way up. It is obvious to anyone that the foreclosures were deliberate, in order to depress the market, making it easier for those who did have their own credit, to swallow up properties at half price.

 

[Rambunctious]

Why don't you and the rest of the Russian trolls just hold your breath until that happens.

You know what is funny?....The biggest Russian trolls don't even realize that they are Russian trolls....like you....and anyone else that wanted Hillary Clinton the biggest whore on the public stage to win....she and her family has enriched themselves beyond belief through despots like Putin....and you are too death dumb and blind to see how you are really the perfect American in Putin's eyes...