Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Note: This is a post I wrote for a different article, but I believe it fits here as well.
Note: The information I am going to post comes largely from this WSJ article.
We talk about taxing the wealthy quite a bit. As a thought experiment, a writer did the math supposing we tax the rich 100%. Below are data from the article in question.
----
Currently the top 1% of taxpayers are those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above $380,000/yr. Suppose those people were taxed at 100% - the government confiscated 100% of their salaries, dividends and capital gains for one year. That would yield merely about $938 billion, when compared to the $4 trillion federal budget, or the $1.65 trillion deficit is simply not nearly enough.
...
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
If you disagree with the article, please point out where the math is incorrect. That is the beauty of mathematics - it IS black and white.
Please be specific, or I will assume you don't know what you are talking about.
These numbers look particularly wrong. According to the Tax Foundation,, (Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)) the top 1%'s AGI was $1,685,472,000,000 not $938 billion. Besides, nobody is stating to tax the rich at 100% nor is anyone stating that the top 1% should bear the full burden. What I've read is just return to the Clinton rates for all tax brackets.
Nor is anyone suggesting the preposterous -- that it needs to be paid in one year. However, it does show that if the rates on only to top were increased to the rates that existed under Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, the debt could be paid off in less than ten years.
These numbers look particularly wrong. According to the Tax Foundation,, (Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)) the top 1%'s AGI was $1,685,472,000,000 not $938 billion. Besides, nobody is stating to tax the rich at 100% nor is anyone stating that the top 1% should bear the full burden. What I've read is just return to the Clinton rates for all tax brackets.
Nor is anyone suggesting the preposterous -- that it needs to be paid in one year. However, it does show that if the rates on only to top were increased to the rates that existed under Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, the debt could be paid off in less than ten years.
To start, if you want to be taken seriously, please do not use phrases like 'Saint Ronald Regan'. Are we 12 years old?
Your 'the debt could be paid off in less than 10 years' assumes no interest and no additional debt incursion. Please re-do your math. My numbers (968 billion) was net taxible dollars, not gross as yours is.
Don't you see that we have a cost problem, not a revenue problem? How can you ignore that fact?
To claim that the stimulus did no good at all is just false. The fact is that the stimulus was too small and contained too much tax-cuts instead of spending.
Um... no. The stimulus failed because much of it was spending on a back door bailout to the states.
Quote:
The idea behind channeling money to state governments is that it would reduce the paring of government payrolls, thus preserving the spending power of public employees. But the plan went awry, according to a paper by Dartmouth College economists James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
"Transfers to the states to support education and law enforcement appear to have little effect," they concluded. Most likely, they said, states used the money to avoid raising taxes or borrowing money.
That's right: The federal government took out loans that it will have to cover with future tax increases ... so states don't have to. It's like paying your Visa bill with your MasterCard.
The public works component could have been called public nonworks. It sounds easy for Washington to pay contractors to embark on "shovel-ready projects" that needed only money to get started. The administration somehow forgot that even when the need is urgent, the government moves at the speed of a glacier.
John Cogan and John Taylor, affiliated with Stanford University and the Hoover Institution, reported earlier this year that out of that $862 billion, a microscopic $4 billion has been used to finance infrastructure. Even Obama has been chagrined. "There's no such thing as shovel-ready projects," he complained last year.
The greed from the entitlement crybabies on the left astounds me.
Stop standing with your hand out hoping to take from someone whom you feel has too much. Get your own and be happy with what you have. Obama and an ongoing democratic congress has ruined this country and the entitlements must go due to the fact that this country has no money. It really is not a hard concept to grasp.
Hey Mr. Unifnormed...............billions went to Wallstreet in the form of bank bailouts. The rich receive more entitlements than the poor........but I guess that is your version of capitalism right? Bail out businesses that go bankrupt? LMAO! Hypocrite!
To start, if you want to be taken seriously, please do not use phrases like 'Saint Ronald Regan'. Are we 12 years old?
Your 'the debt could be paid off in less than 10 years' assumes no interest and no additional debt incursion. Please re-do your math. My numbers (968 billion) was net taxible dollars, not gross as yours is.
Don't you see that we have a cost problem, not a revenue problem? How can you ignore that fact?
First, I see IOKIYAR is alive an well. Your side thinks it's quite serious to refer to the "Affordable Care Act" as "Obama Care" but takes offense if one refers to Reagan, who is lionized by Republicans, by noting this lionization by calling him 'Saint Ronald Reagan.'
Second, my numbers are AGI which by definition are, adjusted. That's different than Gross Income. AGI is after deductions. Thus, I stand behind these figures.
Moreover, this is just one tax area -- individual tax returns. This, when coupled with the reasonable proposals regarding corporate jets and oil companies and making sure all corporations actually pay taxes, adds enough revenue to pay off the debt within a decade.
A decade ago, the CBO reported that based upon the tax-rates of the time (Clinton's rates) the debt would be paid by 2006. Of course, Bush lowered taxes and started two expensive wars which invalidated that report but underscored the fact that taxes are the largest function to paying off the debt.
One can solve problems if one has the will to do so, instead of declaring that the debt situation is so serious we need to cut nutrition programs to infants but not so serious that we can't raise taxes on the richest of the rich by one penny.
it’s just false to say that the stimulus created "no jobs" or "failed to save and create jobs" or "has done nothing to reduce unemployment" – or similar claims that the stimulus did not produce any jobs.
As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."
Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive.
In addition, economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi wrote: "We estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5 percent lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8 1/2 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation."
I don't know anything about the sex bill but I do know logical inference. What you are saying is that if one ever wrong, then anything thereafter can't be trusted. By that rule, nothing anyone says can be trusted.
I don't know anything about the sex bill but I do know logical inference. What you are saying is that if one ever wrong, then anything thereafter can't be trusted. By that rule, nothing anyone says can be trusted.
First, I see IOKIYAR is alive an well. Your side thinks it's quite serious to refer to the "Affordable Care Act" as "Obama Care" but takes offense if one refers to Reagan, who is lionized by Republicans, by noting this lionization by calling him 'Saint Ronald Reagan.'
Second, my numbers are AGI which by definition are, adjusted. That's different than Gross Income. AGI is after deductions. Thus, I stand behind these figures.
Moreover, this is just one tax area -- individual tax returns. This, when coupled with the reasonable proposals regarding corporate jets and oil companies and making sure all corporations actually pay taxes, adds enough revenue to pay off the debt within a decade.
A decade ago, the CBO reported that based upon the tax-rates of the time (Clinton's rates) the debt would be paid by 2006. Of course, Bush lowered taxes and started two expensive wars which invalidated that report but underscored the fact that taxes are the largest function to paying off the debt.
One can solve problems if one has the will to do so, instead of declaring that the debt situation is so serious we need to cut nutrition programs to infants but not so serious that we can't raise taxes on the richest of the rich by one penny.
How can you not understand that the wealthy already pay an inordinate percentage of the tax burden?
The debt situation is a cost problem - not a revenue problem, and thus we need to solve it by cutting costs.
How can we in good conscience continue paying into programs that are not economically sustainable?
Stop thinking so emotionally and plan for the financial future of this country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
totally missed:
