wrong answer

Post #341,742 by boxley 4/21/11 9:33:11 AM Reply	wrong answer http://blogs.wsj.com...rase-the-deficit/ An insightful reader post on Megan McArdleÂs blog on the Atlantic uses IRS data to figure out how much money the government would raise by taxing certain wealth levels. He says a 45% rate on incomes of more than $1 million would generate $31 billion, while an even more progressive tax, with rates of 50%, 60%, 70% on incomes of $500,000, $5 million, $10 million respectively would generate an added $133 billion. That is roughly 10% of the current annual budget deficit. should they pay more than they do now, yes but it doesnt solve the spending problem and a new war in Libya doesnt help Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #341,743 by S1mon_Jester 4/21/11 10:20:44 AM Reply	Of course... if you remove the Bush Tax Cuts entirely (not just the 250K+), it's a different story entirely.
Post #341,744 by Another Scott 4/21/11 10:22:55 AM Reply	There is no short-term "spending problem" The deficits exploded in the recession due to a drop in tax revenue. Now, if you want to go back to Bush's budgets before the recession, yes Medicare Part D, 2 wars, and so forth that weren't paid for were a big "spending problem", but most of the deficit goes away if the tax rates go back to Clinton's levels. http://cdn.crooksand...deficit_1cef5.jpg Long-term, it's all about health care costs. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #341,753 by folkert 4/21/11 1:45:29 PM Reply	I gave you the answer you wanted. I saw the video way before I answered. Its about all the Bush tax cuts, not just the ones to the very wealthy.
Post #341,768 by beepster 4/21/11 3:08:45 PM Reply	IOW 1) Obama KNOWS that he can't fix the problem simply with a tax hike on the rich. 2) Bush tax cuts benefited EVERYONE, not just the rich and 3) We're all in for higher taxes IF Washington is serious about fixing the problem. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #341,769 by Another Scott 4/21/11 3:49:43 PM Reply	Re: IOW 1) Strawman. Where has Obama said that? 2) False, unless you're using "benefit" differently than most everyone else. Someone who brings home $10 more a week hardly "benefits" the same way as someone bringing home $20k more a week... http://www.cbpp.org/...m?fa=view&id=1811 3) False, unless you're defining "we all" differently than most everyone else. Cheers, Scott.
Post #341,770 by jake123 4/21/11 4:09:28 PM Reply	About number three Actually, it's true. Americans seem to have this idea they don't need to pay for the fruits of collective labour. They do. Higher taxes would go a long way to enabling fixing a lot of the problems the US has, simply by making the resources available. Americans pay some of the lowest taxes in the industrialised world. I'm not sure why their surprised that the result of those low taxes is crappy run-down infrastructure and a large intractable underclass. It will take a long time to fix both of those problems, but sadly most Americans don't seem very interested in that, not recognising the connection between both of those problems and US power and the ability to actually do things. The cultural problem is the biggest one. If you don't get to share in any way in any of the benefits that are offered by membership in your society (see earlier discussion of the population of Benton Harbor, for example) then why would you be interested in doing anything that would contribute to that society?
Post #341,775 by Another Scott 4/21/11 4:43:21 PM Reply	I was too terse. I agree with all you said. With the caveat that someone making, say, $20k a year and trying to support a family doesn't need to be paying higher taxes to the federal government. As a whole, the country needs to pay more, but we need to be selective. For example, the mortgage interest deduction needs to be phased out. Capital gains taxes need to be increased. Other "tax expenditures" (which cost $1.2T per year) need to be carefully examined as well - http://www.americanp...enditures101.html When politicians down here say "everyone needs to contribute" they're feeding the right-wing meme that low income people in the US don't pay taxes. They're wrong - low income people in the US do pay taxes, and they pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than many other groups. They just don't pay federal income taxes if their income is low enough. Making someone who earns, say, $20k a year pay higher federal income taxes isn't going to solve the federal budget problems. "Everyone" doesn't need to chip in - too many have suffered while the rich benefitted excessively over the last 30 years. That's what I was getting at. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #341,778 by beepster 4/21/11 4:53:21 PM Reply	So riddle me this if they don't pay federal income taxes...and only taxing the rich is not a fix...and these downtrodden all need increased federal services...how do you propose this happens? Or are you saying that the top 1% can close a 15T gap? (fat chance) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #341,780 by Another Scott 4/21/11 5:05:03 PM Reply	Re: So riddle me this You reply without understanding the words I have written. There's little point in me trying to explain myself better. But here's a hint: The income to the US Treasury is made up of much more than individual income taxes. Bush's tax cuts weren't just income tax cuts. Capital gains, which dominate the income of many of the richest people in the country, are not treated as ordinary income. http://mobile.salon....pholes/index.html Cheers, Scott.
Post #341,796 by beepster 4/21/11 9:18:37 PM Reply	so? they aren't "ordinary income", they're capital gains. You just want them to be treated as ordinary income. Until you do something like sell your house...or actually buy some stock for your retirement. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #341,799 by Another Scott 4/21/11 9:28:01 PM Reply	You're not the Amazing Kreskin. <sheesh>
Post #341,777 by beepster 4/21/11 4:50:47 PM Reply	Evidence of you drinking the koolaid. 1) He said as much in his budget address...listen to it again. 2) Benefit means exactly that. YOU are adding proportionality to it, not I. If you took home more, regardless of how much...you benefited. And it was a couple grand in many cases for "middle class". 3) We all, rich, poor, middle, corporations...you know...everybody...and cuts will need to be made...everywhere (including defense..which Obama seems to have left alone in current proposals...more "change") Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #341,779 by Another Scott 4/21/11 4:55:02 PM Reply	Re: Evidence 1) "he said as much" is your interpretation. It's not what he said. 2) Meh. In other words, you're changing the meaning. $10 more a week at the beginning of a period of inflation and no raises by the end of the period doesn't leave you better off. Being stuck in place in the economy isn't a benefit. Federal tax policy has an impact on these things. 3) See my reply to Jake. Cheers, Scott.
Post #341,800 by beepster 4/21/11 9:37:45 PM Reply	No sir, you are changing the meaning. and also ignoring that for a huge number of people..they either stopped paying all together, or received significantly more back that 10. You are "qualifying" the term benefit. Def 2..a payment or gift. By changing the code, you paid less. Thats a benefit. http://www.thedailys...011-ricky-gervais Even Jon heard it...5:30 He just called it "cutting spending in the tax code". 35% of filers itemize. 45% don't pay. Hmm. How's that math degree? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #341,802 by Another Scott 4/21/11 9:51:23 PM Reply	You're still no Amazing Kreskin. <sheesh>
Post #341,792 by folkert 4/21/11 6:33:02 PM Reply	Re: IOW 1) I didn't say that. But come on he has got to know that. 2) Not quite everyone. and last but not least... 3) I'm all for it IF and ONLY IF its used for doing just that and not for YET ANOTHER WAR.
Post #341,804 by Another Scott 4/22/11 12:47:20 AM Reply	More on 2) Sure *EVERYONE* benefits because we're all treated equally under the law. http://www.quotation...om/quote/805.html The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. The lowest 20% income bracket got an average tax cut of $27 in 2004 as a result of all of the Bush tax cut provisions - http://www.cbpp.org/files/4-23-04tax.pdf (page 39). $0.52 a week! I guess *EVERYONE* benefited after all!!!!111 Cheers, Scott.
Post #341,811 by beepster 4/22/11 7:46:38 AM Reply	shocker People who didnt pay income taxes didnt get their income taxes reduced by an income tax reduction That's just not fair! Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #341,830 by boxley 4/22/11 2:42:22 PM Reply	he is one of Patrick's lesser brother's followers give me fair of give me death Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!