Originally posted by SoothfastIt will not come close to balancing the budget. Not close!
Cute way of spinning it: the additional revenue will "only" pay to run the government for 45 days.
Of course, that's 45 days per year.
That's 12.3% of the total federal budget.
12.3% of the 2011 federal budget would amount to about $283 billion!
It's over 40% of the annual military budget!
It's over 25% of the annual budget deficit!
What a ridiculous talking point.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnFirst letting the entire Bush plan expire would expose the lie that they were tax cuts only "for the rich". The other way submits to the lies and demagoguery of the left. Second it will raise a lot more money as there are a lot more in the lower income groups, and since we're talking marginal rates, the rich will pay those increased rates as well.
I don't buy the "skin in the game" argument as if those who make too little to pay federal income tax somehow have no reason to care or even less reason to care what the government spends money on.
There are plenty of people who do pay taxes who are too apathetic to participate in the marketplace of ideas so that in itself isn't a primary incentive to ...[text shortened]... ve in that arena.
I also don't see that as a very good reason to tax someone or anyone.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignThere is no lie that they were only "for the rich", there is/was a claim that the rich benefited more from those tax cuts and they likely did. There definitely is a lie that somehow the rich suffer from unfairly high tax rates.
First letting the entire Bush plan expire would expose the lie that they were tax cuts only "for the rich". The other way submits to the lies and demagoguery of the left. Second it will raise a lot more money as there are a lot more in the lower income groups, and since we're talking marginal rates, the rich will pay those increased rates as well.
Second it will raise a lot more money as there are a lot more in the lower income groups,
Yes, there's more money in the poor people's pockets so it's better to squeeze blood from that stone. The poor and the middle class have benefited so disproportionately from the economy after all.
On a different note, I'm not really sure how your post truly relates to the one you responded to... but oh well.
Originally posted by moon1969[/b]Who creates jobs? People and companies with money.
Go to this link to see the ridiculous claims by Fauz News. http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/09/fox-echoes-gops-bogus-claim-that-taxes-on-wealt/191319[b]Fox Echoes GOP's Bogus Claim That Taxes On Wealthiest Will Hurt Economy, Jobs
Fox News guests have repeated House Speaker John Boehner's claim that raising taxes would slow down the ...[text shortened]... t, while lowering taxes for the rich does not boost the economy or create jobs. . . .
Obama when extending the tax cuts admitted letting them expire would harm the economy. Was that claim bogus as well.
The truth is that nobody knows exactly what any one factor will do to an economy. However, in general taxation is almost never stimulative to an economy, so increasing it rarely if ever is stimulative.
Originally posted by SoothfastOh yeah...oops, I slipped up. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts will "raise" about $83 billion over a year. The government costs $9.7 billion a year to run. So I was way off.
Cute way of spinning it: the additional revenue will "only" pay to run the government for 45 days.
Of course, that's 45 days per year.
That's 12.3% of the total federal budget.
12.3% of the 2011 federal budget would amount to about $283 billion!
It's over 40% of the annual military budget!
It's over 25% of the annual budget deficit!
What a ridiculous talking point.
$83B/$9.7B = 8 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes.
That's what Obama wants. He's willing to go slice America's throat over eight and a half days of government.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignWho creates jobs? People and companies with money.
Who creates jobs? People and companies with money.
Obama when extending the tax cuts admitted letting them expire would harm the economy. Was that claim bogus as well.
The truth is that nobody knows exactly what any one factor will do to an economy. However, in general taxation is almost never stimulative to an economy, so increasing it rarely if ever is stimulative.
So what? So tax the people who can afford it least? That makes sense. We live in a consumer driven economy and 1-2% of the population can't support that on their own. The economy gets better by having more people having more disposable income.
Companies create jobs if they see the opportunity to make more money and that's pretty much it. It doesn't make sense to somehow bribe them with lower tax rates to create jobs when they inherently have that incentive no matter what the tax rates.
Obama when extending the tax cuts admitted letting them expire would harm the economy. Was that claim bogus as well.
Yes and no. He was in a position where he felt he had to extend all of the tax cuts and his basic claim is that the middle tax cuts would harm the economy and he couldn't get congress to only extend those on the middle class.
I think he should have allowed all them to expire back then instead of ending up parotting the republican talking point to justify calling for their extension.
However, in general taxation is almost never stimulative to an economy, so increasing it rarely if ever is stimulative.
I have never heard anyone claim that simply taxing people is stimulative and I certainly have never made that claim. There is evidence that tax rates themselves (low or high) do not correlate with economic success.
I have more than often heard the B.S. often that cutting taxes is stimulative though.
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672$83B= about 15% of our annual military spending. It's a hugh start. 🙂
Oh yeah...oops, I slipped up. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts will "raise" about $83 billion over a year. The government costs $9.7 billion a year to run. So I was way off.
$83B/$9.7B = 8 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes.
That's what Obama wants. He's willing to go slice America's throat over eight and a half days of government.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnSorry but "tax cuts for the rich" is a lie. Any equal tax cut for all groups will save taxpayers who pay more a greater aggregate savings.
There is no lie that they were only "for the rich", there is/was a claim that the rich benefited more from those tax cuts and they likely did. There definitely is a lie that somehow the rich suffer from unfairly high tax rates.
[b] Second it will raise a lot more money as there are a lot more in the lower income groups,
Yes, there's more money ...[text shortened]... 'm not really sure how your post truly relates to the one you responded to... but oh well.[/b]
The phrase was repeated incessantly without any reference to the fact that all groups got reduced rates, even EITCs increased.
As to relevance to the thread, Obama got it when he extended the cuts. Now he seems to think differently.
The money raised from marginal incomes over $250,000 is chump change given the scope of the deficit. You have to go where the money is. A few hundred or few thousand wealthy can't support the rest of us. Go ahead, do a 1917 Bolshevik and confiscate everything from the wealthy. Then tell me their wealth is not relevant to jobs. Take Mr. Buffet's wealth, which won't do much about the debt and deficit but will cripple the companies supported by Berkshire Hathaway, and leave all the workers unemployed. Multiply that by the hundreds of other rich, and wait not long for the food riots, and death squads of FEMA.
You don't want a solution, only a scapegoat.
Originally posted by KingDavid403That's a good point. I hadn't thought of gasoline tax, which is a federal excise tax.
If you pay any federal tax you help pay towards our federal spending. Look at how much money goes to the federal goverment from every gallon of gas. If we didn't have federal tax on Gas it would be MUCH cheaper. 😉
Originally posted by normbenignYou don't want a solution, only a scapegoat.
Sorry but "tax cuts for the rich" is a lie. Any equal tax cut for all groups will save taxpayers who pay more a greater aggregate savings.
The phrase was repeated incessantly without any reference to the fact that all groups got reduced rates, even EITCs increased.
As to relevance to the thread, Obama got it when he extended the cuts. Now he seems t ...[text shortened]... the food riots, and death squads of FEMA.
You don't want a solution, only a scapegoat.
Why do I even bother responding to any of the crap you post ever?
You just posted a whole strew of strawmen so enjoy them and let me know when you want to be honest about what I actually want and actually propose.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWhy don't you articulate what you want?
[b]You don't want a solution, only a scapegoat.
Why do I even bother responding to any of the crap you post ever?
You just posted a whole strew of strawmen so enjoy them and let me know when you want to be honest about what I actually want and actually propose.[/b]
Originally posted by KingDavid403No one - not a single soul - will stop you from writing a check to the US Treasury. You think you're not paying your fair share? Write the Treasury a check. Flim it and put it on YouTube as a shining example of patriotism.
$83B= about 15% of our annual military spending. It's a hugh start. 🙂
Originally posted by sasquatch672I did.
Why don't you articulate what you want?
In any case, I shouldn't have to express specifics in order to prevent people from making crap up. If there is something that he actually think is unclear than there is this thing called a "question", which if you ask one then you can get an "answer".
I don't make up fantasies about what normbenign wants. Am I being unreasonable to expect the same from him?
If Norm is unclear about what I want he should ask instead of making up whatever fantasies he wants to project.