PDA

View Full Version : Why raising taxes on the rich won't work



Peter1469
11-22-2012, 09:47 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/22/obama_wants_higher_revenues_and_rates_--_but_is_it_a_deal-breaker_116227.html


Why? Well, it was former Bush advisor Keith Hennessey who discovered a big obstacle in all this. Team Obama wants a gargantuan $1.6 trillion tax hike over the next 10 years to finance larger government. And Hennessey surmised -- and I agree -- that the reason the president couched his language in terms of higher tax "revenues" rather than tax "rates" is that he essentially wants both. Raise the top rates and cap or eliminate a number of tax deductions for more revenues. This is going to be a big problem. It could well be a deal-breaker.
***
However, raising the two top rates would only produce about $440 billion, which is way below Obama's $1.6 trillion number. So you can almost sense that the president is going to go for higher tax rates, strict limits on itemized deductions, a phase-out of the personal exemption, and tax-rate hikes on capital gains, dividends and estates. On top of all that, the Financial Times reports that Team Obama wants a $150 billion business tax hike over 10 years.

Chris
11-22-2012, 11:13 AM
He also wants to ignore sequestration spending cuts, er, spending increase cuts. So that leaves higher tax rates.

Peter1469
11-22-2012, 11:52 AM
He also wants to ignore sequestration spending cuts, er, spending increase cuts. So that leaves higher tax rates.

I get the feeling that congress will just ignore sequestration, even though it is law.

Chris
11-22-2012, 11:53 AM
Congress has no sense of responsibility but to their own power.

Castle
11-22-2012, 10:26 PM
The government has doubled in size in the last 12 years. How is it possible that there are people that believe that what we need is to give it more money?

Chris
11-22-2012, 10:59 PM
The government has doubled in size in the last 12 years. How is it possible that there are people that believe that what we need is to give it more money?

But that's the liberal way, their plans have failed only because too little money has been spent.

Mainecoons
11-23-2012, 08:42 AM
If you want to raise real money, you have to soak the middle class. However, the more money that is diverted to wasteful government and its overpaid cadres of unionized workers, the less the taxpayers have.

There's only one solution here and the one that will not happen--cut the hell out of government.

Kabuki Joe
11-23-2012, 08:46 AM
If you want to raise real money, you have to soak the middle class. However, the more money that is diverted to wasteful government and its overpaid cadres of unionized workers, the less the taxpayers have.

There's only one solution here and the one that will not happen--cut the hell out of government.


...it doesn't matter how much you collect if you are spending most of it...you will never ahead that way...


Kabuki Joe

Mainecoons
11-23-2012, 08:50 AM
Worse, spending all of it and printing nearly 40 percent of the budget, in the case of the Feds. And the leftist states like CA are almost as bad.

Too much government at all levels, that's the core problem that is killing the economy. Add up all their spending and borrowing and it easily adds up to half the national output.

Unsustainable.

patrickt
11-23-2012, 09:38 AM
Raising taxes isn't to generate government revenue. It's to punish "them". It's class warfare in the trenches.

Mainecoons
11-23-2012, 09:57 AM
It is interesting how all the liberals are conveniently forgetting the 3.8 percent tax hike on "the rich" already programmed into ObamaKill (whoops, "care") with their continued soak the rich rants.

Folks, you are witnessing the killing of that which made America great very quickly. Get out while you can.

truthmatters
11-23-2012, 12:49 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/22/obama_wants_higher_revenues_and_rates_--_but_is_it_a_deal-breaker_116227.html


Why? Well, it was former Bush advisor Keith Hennessey who discovered a big obstacle in all this. Team Obama wants a gargantuan $1.6 trillion tax hike over the next 10 years to finance larger government. And Hennessey surmised -- and I agree -- that the reason the president couched his language in terms of higher tax "revenues" rather than tax "rates" is that he essentially wants both. Raise the top rates and cap or eliminate a number of tax deductions for more revenues. This is going to be a big problem. It could well be a deal-breaker.
***
However, raising the two top rates would only produce about $440 billion, which is way below Obama's $1.6 trillion number. So you can almost sense that the president is going to go for higher tax rates, strict limits on itemized deductions, a phase-out of the personal exemption, and tax-rate hikes on capital gains, dividends and estates. On top of all that, the Financial Times reports that Team Obama wants a $150 billion business tax hike over 10 years.

It has historically proven to work.

cutting taxes has NEVER proven to work in history as the current republican party claims

Chris
11-23-2012, 01:07 PM
It has historically proven to work.

cutting taxes has NEVER proven to work in history as the current republican party claims

Prove it, matters, prove both your claims.

Peter1469
11-23-2012, 03:00 PM
It has historically proven to work.

cutting taxes has NEVER proven to work in history as the current republican party claims

You are wrong. The last time you said that, I provided evidence to show that I was right. You have yet to provide anything to counter it.

Chloe
11-23-2012, 05:22 PM
I think if the richest people were taxed more than maybe their tax money should go to certain things instead of to the big treasury. So for example the taxes taken from the richest Americans would go straight to something like national parks or something like that. At least that way we would know exactly what those extra millions of dollars are going towards. I don't think raising taxes on the rich would really fix debt or anything like that, but it could easily go towards projects.

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 05:45 PM
If you want to raise real money, you have to soak the middle class. However, the more money that is diverted to wasteful government and its overpaid cadres of unionized workers, the less the taxpayers have.

There's only one solution here and the one that will not happen--cut the hell out of government.


The middleclass, are not the ones who have most of the GDP. Their share is approx. 4 Trillion. The upper 20%, of which, mostly the upper 10%, have approx. 2/3rds or 10 Trillion of GDP.

So those who have the lions share are required to contribute the lions share of the 3(+/- 500B)
Federal Budget. 1 Trillion, does not cut it. At least, they should be paying another 500 Billion/year, which would still be less than 20% measured against their share of GDP.

It is certainly possible to shave off about 500B/year from the Fed Budget, but if we are going to do that, then the least the upper 5-10% can do is return to the Clinton tax rate of 39.6% and Capital Gains tax rate can be means tested so they pay more like at least 30% on CG.

Cutting government, and in turn, cutting jobs, while not increasing tax revenue, does not pay off the 16 Trillion debt already accrued since Reagan started the practice, running up a 4 Trillion debt. That was in 1980's, so adjusted for inflation, Reagan ran up the National Debt worse than Obama did.

Then George W.B. added an additional 5 Trillion and nearly collapsed the economy permanently.

So if the Cons still want to suggest that Cons are more fiscally responsible than Libs, then they will run into the facts again, which is what caused Mitt Romneyomics problems, which were exposed and the main reason Cons lost support this time around. (in addition to the retro social policies).

Chris
11-23-2012, 05:50 PM
The middleclass, are not the ones who have most of the GDP. Their share is approx. 4 Trillion. The upper 20%, of which, mostly the upper 10%, have approx. 2/3rds or 10 Trillion of GCP.

So those who have the lions share are required to contribute the lions share of the 3(+/- 500B)
Federal Budget. 1 Trillion, does not cut it. At least, they should be paying another 500 Billion/year, which would still be less than 20% measured against their share of GDP.

It is certainly possible to shave off about 500B/year from the Fed Budget, but if we are going to do that, then the least the upper 5-10% can do is return to the Clinton tax rate of 39.6% and Capital Gains tax rate can be means tested so they pay more like at least 30% on CG.

Cutting government, and in turn, cutting jobs, while not increasing tax revenue, does not pay off the 16 Trillion debt already accrued since Reagan started the practice, running up a 4 Trillion debt. That was in 1980's, so adjusted for inflation, Reagan ran up the National Debt worse than Obama did.

Then George W.B. added an additional 5 Trillion and nearly collapsed the economy permanently.

So if the Cons still want to suggest that Cons are more fiscally responsible than Libs, then they will run into the facts again, which is what caused Mitt Romneyomics problems, which were exposed and the main reason Cons lost support this time around. (in addition to the retro social policies).

You omit one major fact, that generally those with a bigger cut of GDP tend to contribute more in investment, hiring, purchases, etc.

The problem with your argument is you're trying to enforce fairness without defining it first.

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 06:00 PM
You omit one major fact, that generally those with a bigger cut of GDP tend to contribute more in investment, hiring, purchases, etc.

The problem with your argument is you're trying to enforce fairness without defining it first.

I wish I could believe that, Chris, really, but the last 16 years do not bear that out, as far as my own personal experience and those around me, in this part of the USA, which is Florida. The best period of time for my small business partners, was during the later half of the Clinton admin, and that coincides with the Clinton/Gingrich compromise of both 39.6% taxation, and "pay as you go" budget balancing, and willingness of Clinton to reform welfare to more of a work program. Plus there was the "peace" dividend, and savings on less Military expenditure.

I see no reason, why we cannot try this again. It was the only period since Eisenhower, when the Fed Budget was balanced, no additional debt added to the National debt, and actually a small surplus added that was starting to pay down on the National debt.

Chris
11-23-2012, 06:13 PM
I wish I could believe that, Chris, really, but the last 16 years do not bear that out, as far as my own personal experience and those around me, in this part of the USA, which is Florida. The best period of time for my small business partners, was during the later half of the Clinton admin, and that coincides with the Clinton/Gingrich compromise of both 39.6% taxation, and "pay as you go" budget balancing, and willingness of Clinton to reform welfare to more of a work program. Plus there was the "peace" dividend, and savings on less Military expenditure.

I see no reason, why we cannot try this again. It was the only period since Eisenhower, when the Fed Budget was balanced, no additional debt added to the National debt, and actually a small surplus added that was starting to pay down on the National debt.

Because in the long run it failed.

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 07:06 PM
Because in the long run it failed.

Lets see.

Reagan Admin= 4 Trillion National Debt. FAIL!Nearly started WW3 by attempting to deploy additional Pershing II Nuclear missiles in West Germany causing countdown clock to armageddon to be reset to 5 minutes to H hour.

Bush 1 Admin= 1 more Trillion added= 5 Trillion Debt, handed off recession to Clinton. FAIL!

Clinton Admin= Balanced Federal Budget for 8 years, added nothing to National Debt, generated 114 Billion yearly surplus, which, had that continued through Bush 2, for 8 more years, would have reduced National Debt by at least 1 Trillion. That was in the right direction. End of the Cold War, improved relations with China/Russia.
SUCCESS!!

Bush 2 Admin= total reversal of Clinton/Balanced Budget/yearly surplus by attempting trickle down 2, lowering taxes on high income from 39.6% to 35% which lost 250 Billion of tax revenue/year. Then Bush/Cheney and the Military Industrialist wealthy, embarked on their profiteering wars, which cost 250 Billion added to the already bloated Military budget of over 600B/year.. NET RESULT= NEGATIVE 500 Billion/year, an unbalanced Federal Budget, 5 Trillion added to the already 5 Trillion for total of 10 T National Debt. Then add the detrimental effect to oil prices, caused by eliminating Saddam Hussein, who was the reason why oil prices were lower in Europe and the USA, because he was undercutting the Saudi Oil Cartel (Bush family crony friends).BIGGEST FAIL SINCE HOOVER!!

Obama admin= Recovering from Bush 2 Fiasco economy (1st term). 2nd term, beginning January 21/2012 , will begin return to Clinton balanced Federal Budget, and eventually a yearly surplus to pay down National Debt. War in Iraq ended, War in Afghanistan ends, Military budget reduced. Eventually, new energy industry alternatives will replace oil industry monoply. ON COURSE FOR SUCCESS!!

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 07:12 PM
Having a lot of problems with your forum reply!

Peter1469
11-23-2012, 07:28 PM
I think if the richest people were taxed more than maybe their tax money should go to certain things instead of to the big treasury. So for example the taxes taken from the richest Americans would go straight to something like national parks or something like that. At least that way we would know exactly what those extra millions of dollars are going towards. I don't think raising taxes on the rich would really fix debt or anything like that, but it could easily go towards projects.

The problem, is that this spending will just increase the debt.

Tax revenues are not our problem. Spending is.

Peter1469
11-23-2012, 07:30 PM
The middleclass, are not the ones who have most of the GDP. Their share is approx. 4 Trillion. The upper 20%, of which, mostly the upper 10%, have approx. 2/3rds or 10 Trillion of GDP.

So those who have the lions share are required to contribute the lions share of the 3(+/- 500B)
Federal Budget. 1 Trillion, does not cut it. At least, they should be paying another 500 Billion/year, which would still be less than 20% measured against their share of GDP.

It is certainly possible to shave off about 500B/year from the Fed Budget, but if we are going to do that, then the least the upper 5-10% can do is return to the Clinton tax rate of 39.6% and Capital Gains tax rate can be means tested so they pay more like at least 30% on CG.

Cutting government, and in turn, cutting jobs, while not increasing tax revenue, does not pay off the 16 Trillion debt already accrued since Reagan started the practice, running up a 4 Trillion debt. That was in 1980's, so adjusted for inflation, Reagan ran up the National Debt worse than Obama did.

Then George W.B. added an additional 5 Trillion and nearly collapsed the economy permanently.

So if the Cons still want to suggest that Cons are more fiscally responsible than Libs, then they will run into the facts again, which is what caused Mitt Romneyomics problems, which were exposed and the main reason Cons lost support this time around. (in addition to the retro social policies).

It is certainly possible to shave off about 500B/year from the Fed Budget, but if we are going to do that, then the least the upper 5-10% can do is return to the Clinton tax rate of 39.6% and Capital Gains tax rate can be means tested so they pay more like at least 30% on CG.

We need to cut $1.3T per year, not $500B.

Chris
11-23-2012, 07:44 PM
Lets see.

Reagan Admin= 4 Trillion National Debt. FAIL!Nearly started WW3 by attempting to deploy additional Pershing II Nuclear missiles in West Germany causing countdown clock to armageddon to be reset to 5 minutes to H hour.

Bush 1 Admin= 1 more Trillion added= 5 Trillion Debt, handed off recession to Clinton. FAIL!

Clinton Admin= Balanced Federal Budget for 8 years, added nothing to National Debt, generated 114 Billion yearly surplus, which, had that continued through Bush 2, for 8 more years, would have reduced National Debt by at least 1 Trillion. That was in the right direction. End of the Cold War, improved relations with China/Russia.
SUCCESS!!

Bush 2 Admin= total reversal of Clinton/Balanced Budget/yearly surplus by attempting trickle down 2, lowering taxes on high income from 39.6% to 35% which lost 250 Billion of tax revenue/year. Then Bush/Cheney and the Military Industrialist wealthy, embarked on their profiteering wars, which cost 250 Billion added to the already bloated Military budget of over 600B/year.. NET RESULT= NEGATIVE 500 Billion/year, an unbalanced Federal Budget, 5 Trillion added to the already 5 Trillion for total of 10 T National Debt. Then add the detrimental effect to oil prices, caused by eliminating Saddam Hussein, who was the reason why oil prices were lower in Europe and the USA, because he was undercutting the Saudi Oil Cartel (Bush family crony friends).BIGGEST FAIL SINCE HOOVER!!

Obama admin= Recovering from Bush 2 Fiasco economy (1st term). 2nd term, beginning January 21/2012 , will begin return to Clinton balanced Federal Budget, and eventually a yearly surplus to pay down National Debt. War in Iraq ended, War in Afghanistan ends, Military budget reduced. Eventually, new energy industry alternatives will replace oil industry monoply. ON COURSE FOR SUCCESS!!

Obama is Bush 3, more of the same.

But thanks for demonstrating whatever Clinton might have done didn't last.

Calypso Jones
11-23-2012, 07:47 PM
It is certainly possible to shave off about 500B/year from the Fed Budget, but if we are going to do that, then the least the upper 5-10% can do is return to the Clinton tax rate of 39.6% and Capital Gains tax rate can be means tested so they pay more like at least 30% on CG.

We need to cut $1.3T per year, not $500B.

why not? They're the ones that helped foist Obama on the rest of us anyway.

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 08:00 PM
It is certainly possible to shave off about 500B/year from the Fed Budget, but if we are going to do that, then the least the upper 5-10% can do is return to the Clinton tax rate of 39.6% and Capital Gains tax rate can be means tested so they pay more like at least 30% on CG.

We need to cut $1.3T per year, not $500B.

If the Capital Gains tax is raised to 50% on upper 5% mega wealthy, that would be a good start. And their Fed. income tax rate goes to 50%. And they receive no SS, medicare/Obama care after means testing. And no loopholes. Would raise 500 Billion in additional tax revenue/year. Their share contributed to Federal Budget, would go up from 0.5 Trillion, to 1 Trillion.

And the Fed. tax rate on the upper 10% raised to 50%. And their SS/medicare means tested, saves
from discretionary spending for SS/Medicare. Their share to Fed Budget would = 500 Billion

250 Billion/year from Military Hardware Industry spending.

No wars= 250 Billion/year savings.

500 Billion/year savings from discretionary spending cuts to start, with goal of reaching a 1 Trillion/year savings by end of Obama 2nd term. This could possibly be in the form of more welfare recipients having more government jobs rather than just the pay check. Continuing and expanding the welfare to work idea.

So 1 Trillion off Fed.Budget, plus additional revenue of 500 Billion from upper 20% means a 2 Trillion Fed Budget, and 500 Billion/year surplus, which will start reducing the National Debt of 16 Trillion.

If you want, add a National Sales tax, which then, will alleviate somewhat, the problem with undocumented people, who then would be contributing something, along with the entire population, as an additioal revenue source.

Chloe
11-23-2012, 08:47 PM
The problem, is that this spending will just increase the debt.

Tax revenues are not our problem. Spending is.

If spending is the problem then how much money we spend on the military, weapons, and things for war should also be part of that conversation I think.

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 09:14 PM
Obama is Bush 3, more of the same.

But thanks for demonstrating whatever Clinton might have done didn't last.

No, thank you, for acknowledging that Bush failed, and that if Obama returns to the Clinton era Federal budget and tax rates, that he will be successful.

Your criticism is valid, ONLY, if Obama is going to act like Bush 2, thus does NOT refute the success of the Clinton administration.

And, if Obama does that, which I hope he does not, then that is not a proof that Clinton era economic model failed in the long run, only that there was a failure to elect someone who would continue the Clinton economy, thus providing longer term empirical data than just those 8 years of facts we already have.

We shall see by end of this year, if Obama decides to be Clinton (and success) or be Bush (and failure).

Chris
11-23-2012, 09:22 PM
No, thank you, for acknowledging that Bush failed, and that if Obama returns to the Clinton era Federal budget and tax rates, that he will be successful.

Your criticism is valid, ONLY, if Obama is going to act like Bush 2, thus does NOT refute the success of the Clinton administration.

And, if Obama does that, which I hope he does not, then that is not a proof that Clinton era economic model failed in the long run, only that there was a failure to elect someone who would continue the Clinton economy, thus providing longer term empirical data than just those 8 years of facts we already have.

We shall see by end of this year, if Obama decides to be Clinton (and success) or be Bush (and failure).


No, thank you, for acknowledging that Bush failed, and that if Obama returns to the Clinton era Federal budget and tax rates, that he will be successful.

Except I didn't acknowledge that.


Your criticism is valid, ONLY, if Obama is going to act like Bush 2, thus does NOT refute the success of the Clinton administration.

But Obama already has, he's more of the same, a bigger spender, a bigger debt.

And once again, what success of Clinton, where is it? You demonstrated whatever success he may have had is already gone.


thus providing longer term empirical data than just those 8 years of facts we already have

Where's your empirical data Clinton was a success? Your personal experience is subjective, empirical data wouls be objective.


We shall see by end of this year, if Obama decides to be Clinton (and success) or be Bush (and failure).

Why do you think Obama is going to suddenly change?

Chris
11-23-2012, 09:24 PM
If spending is the problem then how much money we spend on the military, weapons, and things for war should also be part of that conversation I think.

Indeed, funding for the Department of Offense ought to be on the table for spending cuts. Nothing should be left off the table.

GrumpyDog
11-23-2012, 09:33 PM
http://tvnewslies.org/bushbudget.gif


This is why I voted "blue" rather than "red".

Chris
11-23-2012, 09:50 PM
And this is what you get when you don't cherry pick:

http://i.snag.gy/HkNNK.jpg

One question to ask here is why look at Presidents when Congress legislate budgets.

Peter1469
11-23-2012, 10:08 PM
Lets see.

Reagan Admin= 4 Trillion National Debt. FAIL!Nearly started WW3 by attempting to deploy additional Pershing II Nuclear missiles in West Germany causing countdown clock to armageddon to be reset to 5 minutes to H hour.

Bush 1 Admin= 1 more Trillion added= 5 Trillion Debt, handed off recession to Clinton. FAIL!

Clinton Admin= Balanced Federal Budget for 8 years, added nothing to National Debt, generated 114 Billion yearly surplus, which, had that continued through Bush 2, for 8 more years, would have reduced National Debt by at least 1 Trillion. That was in the right direction. End of the Cold War, improved relations with China/Russia.
SUCCESS!!

Bush 2 Admin= total reversal of Clinton/Balanced Budget/yearly surplus by attempting trickle down 2, lowering taxes on high income from 39.6% to 35% which lost 250 Billion of tax revenue/year. Then Bush/Cheney and the Military Industrialist wealthy, embarked on their profiteering wars, which cost 250 Billion added to the already bloated Military budget of over 600B/year.. NET RESULT= NEGATIVE 500 Billion/year, an unbalanced Federal Budget, 5 Trillion added to the already 5 Trillion for total of 10 T National Debt. Then add the detrimental effect to oil prices, caused by eliminating Saddam Hussein, who was the reason why oil prices were lower in Europe and the USA, because he was undercutting the Saudi Oil Cartel (Bush family crony friends).BIGGEST FAIL SINCE HOOVER!!

Obama admin= Recovering from Bush 2 Fiasco economy (1st term). 2nd term, beginning January 21/2012 , will begin return to Clinton balanced Federal Budget, and eventually a yearly surplus to pay down National Debt. War in Iraq ended, War in Afghanistan ends, Military budget reduced. Eventually, new energy industry alternatives will replace oil industry monoply. ON COURSE FOR SUCCESS!!

Debt under Reagan was around $2.3T. And it was caused by a Dem controlled congress.

Kabuki Joe
11-24-2012, 01:20 AM
This is why I voted "blue" rather than "red".


...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...


Kabuki Joe

Peter1469
11-24-2012, 04:11 AM
why not? They're the ones that helped foist Obama on the rest of us anyway.

The OP demonstrated that the tax on the rich will raise only $440B. That is about $.9T too little, and that assumes that 100% of the revenue goes to deficit reduction.