Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The Absurdity of Taxing (the Rich) Our Way to a Balanced Budget
1) According to the IRS, if the government took 100% of EVERYTHING over $250,000, we would STILL have a deficit (the deficit being 1.5 trillion, the amount of cash earned over $250,000 a year, 1.4 trillion). And that, folks, doesn't even take into account the absurdity of it (the fact that people wouldn't even attempt to make that amount knowing that it would all be taken away).............2) The same could be said of corporate profits. Again, according to the IRS, the top Fortune 500 companies made a total of 400 billion in profits last year. Taking ALL of that wouldn't even make a dent in the deficit.............3) There are currently 400 billionaires in the United States. Their total net worth is currently 1.3 trillion dollars. Again, if the federal government took ALL of it, we would still have a deficit to deal with (never mind the fact that we'd be getting zero from them in the future).............4) I cite these statistics, folks, to show the total absurdity of this whole "let's tax the rich to balance the budget" rigmarole. There just aren't enough rich people, period!............5) And, yes, I realize that a similar criticism could easily be levied against the right. This, in that a lot of them think that we can balance the budget strictly by cutting our way to it (hell, if you listen to dimwits like Marsha Blackburn, we can balance it strictly by cutting non-defense discretionary spending!). That, me-buckos, is, yes, equally absurd.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Perhaps Will, we could get serious about eliminating waste.
Start cutting overhead so that more than only a small percentage actually gets where it's supposed to go.
Consolidate duplicative programs and trim personel.
Your buddy Bill O is also claiming that the costs of regulation are now on a par with what we take in in taxes...
I wonder how much that alone would save?
You're LYING!!!! Nobody has ever suggested a 100 percent tax on the wealthy.
Calm down WD, Will is telling you what would result IF.
Reading IS fundamental...
Exactly, Volt. And 77.65% of 1.4 trillion would only be 1.09 trillion, an even bigger deficit than 100%.............And wasn't there a recent report on duplicative services in the Federal government that came up hundreds of billions in waste/duplication (across the frigging board; social services, homeland security, education, defense, etc.)? What in the hell (except, save, for a majorly entrenched bureaucracy) prevents us from eliminating THAT? That is what I want to know.
I think we should retroactively repeal the bush tax cuts... and send everyone a bill for what they would have paid over that period of time if the Clinton rates had stayed in place... plus interest.
That should go a ways toward digging us out of this hole Reganomics has put us in.
The budget can be balanced by 2016 with elimination of the bush tax cuts and leaving everything else the same.
So WD, just out of curiosity what do the uber progressives like yourself believe the wealthy should be taxed at?
Just wondering...
Jerry,you should try reading a business journal once in a while.
Obviously, if you take Will's numbers, the correct rate of taxation has to be 107.15 percent. That's not much more than the 100 percent Will says isn't enough. This would be totally reasonable, IMHO.
In fact, I say we round up to 110 percent and start paying down the national debt.
WD,you should lead the parade on this,show the flag....next time you do your tax return, check the additional box and send in 107% of your income....what a patriot you would be.Will you do that?
Personally, I think we should just tax all foreigners living abroad...
Voltron,
Good idea. Then when they don't pay us we can invade them and bring them Democracy...or just kill them all.
Well Jerry, that would help with another lefty problem.
Reducing over population...
A two-fer!
You realize, of course, that personal income tax is only one source of revenue. There are others such as business income tax which has been woefully lacking. They need to be brought to the table also, and start paying their fair share.
Rusty ...next time you do your tax return, check the additional box and send in 107% of your income... Will you do that?
No, I won't do that. Will's post concerned taxing "the rich". I make a little less than 250k. Under Will's plan my rate of taxation would be zero.
So, if I were to be a patriot I should refuse to pay any income tax.
You're typical WD...you guys always want someone else to pay.
Rusty: You're typical WD... you guys always want someone else to pay.
If you make most of the income you should pay most of the income tax. It's only fair. You're typical for a Conservative Rusty... you want the class that takes most of the income to not pay their fair share of income taxes.
Also, there is the payroll tax... which Cons totally forget about when they complain about the high percentage the wealthy pay in regards to income taxes.
S&P downgraded america to AA today,but have no fear for the 7th time in two and a half years Obie said he's going to focus on jobs....and he said he really means it this time.
Rusty: S&P downgraded America to AA today.
Actually the downgrade was to AA+ Rusty. Also, the reason S&P gave was "political brinkmanship in the debate over the debt".
In other words we can thank the teabagging Congresspersons for this.
Now "Obie" says the focus will be jobs? I doubt it. The Republicans won't allow it. The focus will be the "super committee". Expect more "my way or the high way" demands from the Republicans that lead to this downgrade.
I don't know how much more evidence one needs to reach the conclusion that these teabag jokers have got to go.
WD: "In other words we can thank the teabagging Congresspersons for this."
I'm sure glad they were around and forced Obama to be just a little bit more responsible.
If we had more of these "jokers", we would have been able to solve the problem (by cutting the waste spending)
A couple of points, wd (and I actually agree with you on the tea partiers, btw - just like we cannot tax our way to balanced budget, neither, either, can we cut our way to one). 1) Even if we had a flat-tax (which I do not advocate), the rich would still pay copious amounts more - based upon their earnings. 2) The conservatives probably don't mention the payroll tax because, at least theoretically, the poor folks are supposed to get it all back (and probably more) in the form of social security. Two better examples of a regressive tax would have been the gas tax and the sales tax. 3) Rich people like Steve Jobs don't "take" their income. They earn it through their ingenuity and entrepreneurship. You really ought to be more careful in your choice of verbs.
Just like we cannot tax our way to balanced budget, neither, either, can we cut our way to one.
Sorry Will, but you're wrong. I ALREADY pointed out that all we have to do is raise the tax rate on the wealthy to 107.15 percent. Problem solved.
Actually I think something like 120 percent would be the way to go... that way we could have free healthcare and college for everyone, lower the retirement age to 50 AND pay off the national debt.
As for me using the word "take" instead of "earn"... my choice of verb was done very carefully and intentionally. When discussing someone who is overpaid I don't think the word "earn" is appropriate.
If we do nothing but eliminate the Bush tax cuts, the budget will be balanced by 2016.
Hey, wd. Maybe we SHOULD have a beer.............Jerry, the tax cuts are costing the treasury 370 billion a years. The projected deficits are 1.5 trillion. Is there some sort of calculation that I haven't considered yet (lowering the deficit would improve the economy and bring in more revenue perhaps?)?
The reference is in an earlier comment.
It still doesn't make sense to me (370 billion to 1.5 trillion). Maybe it also assumes that we'll be out of Iraq and Afghanistan, a certain level of growth, the rest of the TARP funds being paid , the health care bill working without a glitch, and other scenarios that may or may not happen. And, besides, I don't see either party with remotely enough courage to even suggest it, unfortunately.
As for Steve Jobs, wd, he earns his money a lot more than that dense and rude counter schmo who mucked up my order today.
"Actually I think something like 120 percent would be the way to go"
Nah, why stop there? Why not a 6000% tax on the wealthy? Then everyone can have bionic limbs and we can build those Alpha Centauri bases.
(Seriously, I find Will's proposals to increase taxes on the wealthy acceptible. Because his goal is to get revenue, and he realizes the side effects of overtaxation. He is not on some misguided "justice" kick which involves the ruling class taking as much from the people as possible)
Jerry, Congressman Parks from Virginia made a similar claim in 2010 (his was an even more optimistic one - a balanced budget in 4 years). Politifact, the Tax Foundation and other groups said that this was false; that in 2015, for instance, even without the Bush tax cuts, we'd still have a 632 billion dollar deficit. I do in fact agree with you, though, that revenues have to be part of the equation.
I agree, dmarks. There is in fact a point of diminishing returns/law of unintended consequences when it comes to tax policy.
dmarks: ...the ruling class taking as much from the people as possible.
Will (in his original post) said, "if the government took 100% of everything over $250,000...".
So, he was talking EXCLUSIVELY about people making over 250k.
dmarks makes it clear with his latest comment (although I always suspected) that, in his mind, to be one of "the people", you've got to make more than 250k a year.
In other words, only the wealthy should have any rights. No doubt dmarks believes that, just like when our country was founded and you needed to own property to be able to vote, only those who make over 250k should be able to vote.
This explains why dmarks is opposed to unions, the minimum wage, and tariffs... these are the things that enable the "non-people" to earn a decent living. In dmarks' world that is something that we simply can NOT have!
If we allowed these things the non-people might get the idea that they could ask for a bigger piece of the pie! "NO WAY", says dmarks -- they can ONLY have the crumbs. The pie itself belongs to "the people" (i.e. the wealthy elites).
"So, he was talking EXCLUSIVELY about people making over 250k."
No, I was talking about EVERYONE. Well, everyone who isn't in government. Those in government are the ruling class. The takers.
"This explains why dmarks is opposed to unions, the minimum wage, and tariffs"
The minimum wage laws force small businesses to hand out large sums of unearned money to workers, only a small percentage of which are poor or needy. So of course I oppose it.
Tariffs are a tax paid almost entirely by middle class working families, to punish them for making economic decision that a few of the ruling elites don't like. So of course I do oppose this.
Unions? No. I don't oppose them. However, I recognize the fact that they are too powerful now due to the membership rolls and dues coffers being inflacted by a large % of workers who are forced to be in unions against their will. I want more power for the workers: union membership should entirely be a personal choice.
"No doubt dmarks believes that, just like when our country was founded and you needed to own property to be able to vote, only those who make over 250k should be able to vote."
Not only is there every reason to doubt this, there is absolutely no reason to believe this false summary of my 'belief'. It goes against everything I have ever said. You have rather poor reading comprehension today.
""NO WAY", says dmarks "
Caught you in a lie. Go ahead. I dare you. Come up with where I originally said your fabricated quote.
You can't....
------------
Will said: "I agree, dmarks. There is in fact a point of diminishing returns/law of unintended consequences when it comes to tax policy."
Yes. If we gave into WD's desired policy of the ruling elites forcibly taking people's property just for the hell of it, investment will go elsewhere. To nations with much less greedy governments.
dmarks: No, I was talking about EVERYONE.
The author of the post to which you responded was talking EXCLUSIVELY about people making over 250k. reread it if you don't believe me.
dmarks: Tariffs are a tax paid almost entirely by middle class working families.
No they aren't. Importers pay tariffs.
dmarks: You have rather poor reading comprehension today.
Actually, I think you have a rather poor comprehension of what the end result of the polices you advocate would be.
dmarks: Caught you in a lie. Go ahead. I dare you. Come up with where I originally said your fabricated quote.
No, I caught YOU in a lie. I said you opposed working people asking for a bigger piece of the pie. You JUST SAID that workers shouldn't get "unearned money"... how is that NOT saying "no way"?
IMO the people receiving this "unearned money" are those at the top. The reason they are able to overpay themselves is because they underpay the workers.
Post a Comment