America's REAL Dirty Little Secret...

[MaggieD]

DPers argue incessantly about the rich needing to pay more taxes -- as if that's the way out of the mess we're in. Look at these numbers from 2008 income tax returns:

16,000 individual returns filed with an Adjusted Gross Income of $10 million or more.

Let's take $10 million from all of them -- my new tax plan:

16,000 X $10 million = $160,000,000,000 ($160 billion)

To compare apples to apples, our 2008 deficit was $407 billion. So even if we taxed these people making $10 million or more at $10 million!!! we still wouldn't cover our deficit spending in that one year -- in fact, we'd come up 2/3 short!!

To put it another way, in order to cover our deficit that year, we would have had to tax those 16,000 people making $10 million or more a year a total of $25.5 million each just to cover our deficit that year.

Still think the problem is the rich not paying enough taxes?

It's the spending, stupid.

2008 deficit forecast soars to $407B - Sep. 9, 2008
How many people make more than $250,000 per year?

 

[Wiseone]

DPers argue incessantly about the rich needing to pay more taxes -- as if that's the way out of the mess we're in. Look at these numbers from 2008 income tax returns:

16,000 individual returns filed with an Adjusted Gross Income of $10 million or more.

Let's take $10 million from all of them -- my new tax plan:

16,000 X $10 million = $160,000,000,000 ($160 billion)

To compare apples to apples, our 2008 deficit was $407 billion. So even if we taxed these people making $10 million or more at $10 million!!! we still wouldn't cover our deficit spending in that one year -- in fact, we'd come up 2/3 short!!

To put it another way, in order to cover our deficit that year, we would have had to tax those 16,000 people making $10 million or more a year a total of $25.5 million each just to cover our deficit that year.

Still think the problem is the rich not paying enough taxes?

It's the spending, stupid.

2008 deficit forecast soars to $407B - Sep. 9, 2008
How many people make more than $250,000 per year?

Has anyone suggested thats the only thing we need to do to get out of debt?

 

[MaggieD]

Has anyone suggested thats the only thing we need to do to get out of debt?

Oh, Wiseone, that's not even a significant part of the problem.

 

[Wiseone]

Oh, Wiseone, that's not even a significant part of the problem.

I totally agree spending is a huge part of the problem, but that doesn't mean I dont think taxes can be reworked.

 

[Redress]

Well this is a giant straw man. Maggie, increasing taxes on the wealthy is a part of the solution for those who advocate for it. You just spent a bunch of time and effort proving(sort of, not really though) something no one is contesting. Personally I don't think raising taxes is a good idea at this time, but those who do, do so with an understanding that it is not the whole solution. They are simply trying to raise revenue as a part of solving the deficit problem. Note that the last time taxes where raised(under Clinton)< revenue did increase substantially, though alot of things figured into that besides just the tax increase.

 

[MaggieD]

Well this is a giant straw man. Maggie, increasing taxes on the wealthy is a part of the solution for those who advocate for it. You just spent a bunch of time and effort proving(sort of, not really though) something no one is contesting. Personally I don't think raising taxes is a good idea at this time, but those who do, do so with an understanding that it is not the whole solution. They are simply trying to raise revenue as a part of solving the deficit problem. Note that the last time taxes where raised(under Clinton)< revenue did increase substantially, though alot of things figured into that besides just the tax increase.

I spent 10 minutes after hearing something on the radio at 4 AM this morning. You say this proves little; I say it proves, "It's the spending, stupid." We'll have to see who's right. But I already know.

This is certainly not the definition of a straw man.

Edit: The straw man is the idea that we can tax our way out of this mess.

 

[Redress]

I spent 10 minutes after hearing something on the radio at 4 AM this morning. You say this proves little; I say it proves, "It's the spending, stupid." We'll have to see who's right. But I already know.

This is certainly not the definition of a straw man.

Edit: The straw man is the idea that we can tax our way out of this mess.

Correct, that is the straw man since that is not what people are saying.

You have not proved that "it is the spending". Once solution(I do not advocate this) is a modest tax increase on the wealthy, then sit back and let growth make it a nonissue. Assuming an increase of spending below the level of growth, this would work. What you are failing to see in trying to oversimplify things is the deficit is caused by revenue being below spending. Raising revenue and/or lowering spending are both potential ways to improve the deficit.

The problem with too many in the whole deficit debate is they try and make a complex problem simple enough for sound bite solutions, but that won't work. It is a complex problem and the solutions will be hard.

 

[MaggieD]

Correct, that is the straw man since that is not what people are saying.

You have not proved that "it is the spending". Once solution(I do not advocate this) is a modest tax increase on the wealthy, then sit back and let growth make it a nonissue. Assuming an increase of spending below the level of growth, this would work. What you are failing to see in trying to oversimplify things is the deficit is caused by revenue being below spending. Raising revenue and/or lowering spending are both potential ways to improve the deficit.

The problem with too many in the whole deficit debate is they try and make a complex problem simple enough for sound bite solutions, but that won't work. It is a complex problem and the solutions will be hard.

If you honestly think we can make modest tax increases on the wealthy and then sit back and let growth make it a nonissue, you are delusional.

What you are failing to see in trying to oversimplify things is the deficit is caused by revenue being below spending.

:rofl :rofl

 

[Redress]

If you honestly think we can make modest tax increases on the wealthy and then sit back and let growth make it a nonissue, you are delusional.

It is a potential solution and would work with the basic assumption I made. If revenue grows faster than spending, what does the deficit do Maggie? Can you use your fancy math skillz to figure that out?

:rofl :rofl

And this was funny why?

 

[MaggieD]

It is a potential solution and would work with the basic assumption I made. If revenue grows faster than spending, what does the deficit do Maggie? Can you use your fancy math skillz to figure that out?

You postulated. You figure it out. You buy into the Kick The Can Down The Road philosophy. Good luck with that.

And this was funny why?

Oh, come on.....you've got to admit that was funny. :rofl I can only surmise that "Very Liberals" have no sense of humor.

 

[MaggieD]

Maybe this really should be the Republican mantra in '12:

It's the spending, Stupid!

 

[liblady]

If you honestly think we can make modest tax increases on the wealthy and then sit back and let growth make it a nonissue, you are delusional.



:rofl :rofl

seems to me clinton did just that.

 

[StillBallin75]

Maybe this really should be the Republican mantra in '12:

It's the spending, Stupid!

Americans still need to be sold on that. People all say they want cuts but when it gets down to the nitty gritty details they can't agree on what to cut, except for foreign aid. Maybe the problem doesn't start with the government, maybe it starts with We the People.

 

[Redress]

You postulated. You figure it out. You buy into the Kick The Can Down The Road philosophy. Good luck with that.

Maybe you missed something I said: I will make it easier for you to see:

(I do not advocate this)

Would it work? Yes. Is it the best solution? Not in my opinion.



[/quote]Oh, come on.....you've got to admit that was funny. :rofl I can only surmise that "Very Liberals" have no sense of humor. [/QUOTE]

What I saw is you took a partial quote and laughed at the partial quote out of context. SO why don't you explain the humor.

 

[MaggieD]

Maybe you missed something I said: I will make it easier for you to see:

Thanks. I did actually miss that. :rofl

Would it work? Yes. Is it the best solution? Not in my opinion.

It won't work. That's the point.

What I saw is you took a partial quote and laughed at the partial quote out of context. SO why don't you explain the humor.

It wasn't a partial quote. And it wasn't out of context. You know the old saying....if ya' have ta' explain it, it missed it's mark. I find your statement so blatantly obvious as to be amusing. You don't? K.

 

[Redress]

Thanks. I did actually miss that. :rofl



It won't work. That's the point.



It wasn't a partial quote. And it wasn't out of context. You know the old saying....if ya' have ta' explain it, it missed it's mark. I find your statement so blatantly obvious as to be amusing. You don't? K.

OK, since you are still missing this: Deficit = revenue lower than spendingrofl:rofl). If you raise revenue or reduce spending, deficit goes down. Let me put it in mathematical terms for you since you like that:

X = revenue
Y = spending
Z = deficit/surplus

X - Y = Z

If X increases faster than Y, Z will increase. This can be done by raising revenue with taxes, or lowering or slowing the increase of Y.

Now the trick, and this is where it gets hard and does not allow for simple solutions, is doing it right. Changes that affect either X or Y actually tend to affect both. For example, simply reducing spending by a very large amount in one year would hurt the economy(potentially significantly, reducing X as well. The reason I do not advocate increasing taxes is because that would actually hurt the rate at which the economy grows by some amount, which hurts in the long run. The full equation for balancing the budget is so complex that even PhD's in economics do not fully understand it or even agree on what it is.

 

[MaggieD]

OK, since you are still missing this: Deficit = revenue lower than spendingrofl:rofl). If you raise revenue or reduce spending, deficit goes down. Let me put it in mathematical terms for you since you like that:

X = revenue
Y = spending
Z = deficit/surplus

X - Y = Z

If X increases faster than Y, Z will increase. This can be done by raising revenue with taxes, or lowering or slowing the increase of Y.

Now the trick, and this is where it gets hard and does not allow for simple solutions, is doing it right. Changes that affect either X or Y actually tend to affect both. For example, simply reducing spending by a very large amount in one year would hurt the economy(potentially significantly, reducing X as well. The reason I do not advocate increasing taxes is because that would actually hurt the rate at which the economy grows by some amount, which hurts in the long run. The full equation for balancing the budget is so complex that even PhD's in economics do not fully understand it or even agree on what it is.

I got it, I got it, Redress. Got it the first time ya' said it. With everything else you've said here, I couldn't agree more...well, except the part about decreasing spending in a large amount. I think we're going to have to bite the bullet sooner or later -- if only because we cannot trust our politicians to stop spending.

 

[Redress]

I got it, I got it, Redress. Got it the first time ya' said it. With everything else you've said here, I couldn't agree more...well, except the part about decreasing spending in a large amount. I think we're going to have to bite the bullet sooner or later -- if only because we cannot trust our politicians to stop spending.

To do exactly what I complain about and oversimplify: What I think we need to do is reduce spending by 1 to 2 % a year, keep tax rates just where they are(except possibly for a small corporate tax reduction to further spur growth). The small spending reduction combined with normal(or better hopefully) GDP growth will in a fairly short time eliminate the deficit. In point of fact, even freezing spending would work, though I favor some reduction.

Social Security and Medicare are part of the problem, but I think the solutions should be considered separately since there are huge, massive, incredibly large complexities to those issues. However, we do have to stop putting off finding solutions for those problems, and right away.

Again, I fully admit this is oversimplified and not complete. I support smaller spending cuts over several years because that limits the amount of damage to the economy caused by the sudden reduction of federal spending to the overall economy.

Thinking on it now, to reduce the spending, what I think I would do is give each party a segment of the federal spending and say reduce this by that 2 %. Republicans for example would do it for military and foreign policy spending(the areas republicans are traditionally strong in), while democrats would have to find the cuts in social programs. Again, oversimplified, but I think you see the method to it.

 

[MaggieD]

To do exactly what I complain about and oversimplify: What I think we need to do is reduce spending by 1 to 2 % a year, keep tax rates just where they are(except possibly for a small corporate tax reduction to further spur growth). The small spending reduction combined with normal(or better hopefully) GDP growth will in a fairly short time eliminate the deficit. In point of fact, even freezing spending would work, though I favor some reduction.

Social Security and Medicare are part of the problem, but I think the solutions should be considered separately since there are huge, massive, incredibly large complexities to those issues. However, we do have to stop putting off finding solutions for those problems, and right away.

Again, I fully admit this is oversimplified and not complete. I support smaller spending cuts over several years because that limits the amount of damage to the economy caused by the sudden reduction of federal spending to the overall economy.

Thinking on it now, to reduce the spending, what I think I would do is give each party a segment of the federal spending and say reduce this by that 2 %. Republicans for example would do it for military and foreign policy spending(the areas republicans are traditionally strong in), while democrats would have to find the cuts in social programs. Again, oversimplified, but I think you see the method to it.

I do see the method to it -- and I like it. A 2% cut in spending would be approximately $71 billion. Disappointing that we couldn't even cut $38 billion without Congress going to war -- and, as I understand it, that wasn't "real" savings of $38 billion, but smoke and mirrors down-the-road projections. (I'm not sure about how that all figures out, but I remember hearing about it.)

Your solution would sure be a step in the right direction...

 

[MaggieD]

She's baaaackkkk....

If we increase the income tax paid by the top 50% of all taxpayers by 40%, we will raise an additional $405 billion. This would cover approximately 1/3 of this year's deficit.

If we confiscate the entire fortunes of our nation's billionaires, we would still not cover our 2011 deficit.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt

It's the spending, stupid!

 

[sazerac]

DPers argue incessantly about the rich needing to pay more taxes -- as if that's the way out of the mess we're in. Look at these numbers from 2008 income tax returns:

16,000 individual returns filed with an Adjusted Gross Income of $10 million or more.

Let's take $10 million from all of them -- my new tax plan:

16,000 X $10 million = $160,000,000,000 ($160 billion)

To compare apples to apples, our 2008 deficit was $407 billion. So even if we taxed these people making $10 million or more at $10 million!!! we still wouldn't cover our deficit spending in that one year -- in fact, we'd come up 2/3 short!!

To put it another way, in order to cover our deficit that year, we would have had to tax those 16,000 people making $10 million or more a year a total of $25.5 million each just to cover our deficit that year.

Still think the problem is the rich not paying enough taxes?

It's the spending, stupid.

2008 deficit forecast soars to $407B - Sep. 9, 2008
How many people make more than $250,000 per year?

Well we have to spend a lot of money to be a civilized country. And a lot of the spending is more of an investment like education

OK Even though taxing the rich more won't solve our problems I say we do it anyway. It was the rich who just ruined our economy. We'll call it a fine.