|
DesideriScuri -> RE: The Government needs money, where to get it (10/4/2013 9:22:00 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
The idea the President had with the Bush era tax cuts was to only allow those making $250K+/year to receive the tax. That would have just about evened out the budget with about $100 Billion or so in budget cuts. So yes, right now, we are suffering, the government is in semi- shutdown status, millions of people are now unemployed; because Republicans are protecting 1.42% of the population's tax rate (that's less than 2% of the population of the USA). And conservatives, whom are no were in the same ballpark as the rich, defend this concept (and they wonder why we shake our heads). You do know that President Obama would have been effected by this tax rate change, right? He does make like $700K/year not just from his day job, but from book deals and other honest forms of income (i.e. investments).
The budget deficit for 2012 was, how much? According to the OMB, $1.087T.
How much do the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" not bring in?
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/cbo-ending-high-income-tax-cuts-would-save-almost-1-trillion/
Almost a $1T ($950B, to be more precise). Oh. That's over the next decade.
You did notice this chart shows 'future projections' based on available data at the time (which is based on data from two years previous)? And assumes nothing major happens. That's a fair argument; no one can predict the future with any real accuracy. Saving a $100 Billion/year is not a good idea to you? That seems rather odd coming from you.....
Of course you would think that. But, I do believe we aren't "saving" anything by taxing people more. Now that we are on the same page...
I see you ignored that what I did was prove your statement was immensely false. The only way your statement would have been true is if we had applied the entire decade of extra revenue to this year. At that point, we'd have had approximately $137B in excess spending in 2012.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In 2022, the year with the highest "savings" from not extending the cuts was only $155B. Even if we take that $155B number and pretend that's the amount every year, how is that going to "even out our budget with about $100 Billion or so in budget cuts?" $1T - $155B = $845B. $845 /= "about $100B or so"
Your making a prediction here of an event nine years into the future? You cant even display the winning Powerball numbers for Saturday's drawing; why should I believe this material is accurate?
Me? I'm making a prediction? Using the CBO's numbers is my making a prediction? I'm sorry you couldn't follow the crazy mathletics I used.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Close all loopholes. Slash spending. Across the board. Defense and non-defense. If it doesn't support itself, it gets cut. If revenues are coming for a program, those revenues are required to stay in that program. Nowhere else.
You cant even name the loopholes or how they are loopholes. Go look up on several sites, and post them here (that's the current conservative tactic). The point I'm making here, is '....close the loopholes....' is nothing more than a buzz word or rhetoric phrasing. It really doesn't help the situation. Why? Many of those loopholes were created with the middle and poor class in mind. However, the sort of people that know about the loopholes are the very rich (because they can afford a full time CPA). Getting rid of the evil loopholes negatively effects the two economic classes they were meant to help. Does that sound like a wise action to you?
There are some loopholes specific for those making over $250K/year. They aren't on any conservative websites, so don't bother looking there. That should raise a red flag in your mind. Why would conservative sites omit those loopholes that benefit the super rich? I can understand the ones that have a financial stake in not making those loopholes known, but why not the really crazy conservative sites?
Second issue...
Cutting budget spending is not what most people understand it to be. Its like they feel the money goes into a black hole and is never seen nor accounted. Yet the grand majority of the money is used (the remaindered is stored for the next budgetary year if there is a shortfall). Its used to create and maintain US jobs. The majority of the Defense Budget does NOT go towards US Military personnel; but towards defense contractors. That's been dubbed 'middle class welfare' for a few decades. Same thing exists in healthcare. Most of the money goes to paying professional level jobs (those that make the drugs and equipment, doctors, nurses, support, administration, legal). What do those in both the defense and health care professionals who get government money spend their disposable dollars on?
This concept is one most people do not understand. Dropping the budget by a small amount (say $70-150 Billion) will have a small negative effect on the whole economy (and a decent size for the industry(s) affected). Dropping the budget as conservatives demand, would be absolutely insane! Remember those professional jobs that people have? They pay taxes. Without a job, they don't pay taxes. What happens to the revenue generated? It doesn't generate. What happens? A Deficit is created. What happen in 2007? A huge number of professionals lost their jobs. What did the country experience? A faster rate of deficit being generated. Its all very mathematical if one takes an objective look at things. The White House and Congress did not contribute to the problem directly in 2009 (indirectly one could make an argument on). You don't hear this understanding on conservative sites, do you, DS? Have you ever asked why? No! Because knowing the knowledge would thus bring up the question; not knowing would not!
So, I am going to have to announce every loophole I am for closing? Seriously? How long is our tax code?
Departing from my desire to see a flat tax (and I do believe that will be a boon for the economy), here is my proposal to simplify the US Individual Tax Code...
[image]http://www.getrichslowly.org/images/2009taxrates.jpg[/image]
The only loopholes I would allow would be those deductions for charitable gifts. Period.
No mortgage interest deduction. Your income is what material benefits you gained in that year. There would be no tax on inherited material gains, except for what the tax code calls for (ie., $50k material benefit [money and stuff] inherited would be $50k of income for income tax purposes; no "inheritance tax" per se).
I hope I didn't lose you in the pages and pages of exemptions, deductions, credits, etc.
While I admit that I didn't call for closing all loopholes (left deductions for charitable giving), I meant what I said.
And, if you really look at it, every tax bracket under the top one is, technically, a loophole.
You have no idea where I get info. You have no clue about any of that. So, spare me the "red flag" and "Conservative sites omit those loopholes" asswipe.
|
|
|
|
