Tax hike for wealthy won't kill growth: CBO

[pricejj]

Obama's plan of "raising taxes on the rich" would only generate about $82B annually, and would not cut the federal deficit below $1T.

In effect, it really does nothing to close the deficit, or keep the U.S. solvent long-term.

Obama's dirty secret is, the only way to keep the U.S. solvent long-term, while paying for his unprecedented government expansion, is to DRASTICALLY increase taxes on the middle-class.

That means going back to the Clinton era tax rates for EVERYONE, and closing ALL the income tax deductions, including the mortgage interest rate deduction.

Of course, if he were to actually be forced to pay for his government expansion, he never would have been re-elected. So, we are stuck increasing debt 7.5% (of GDP) every year, with only 1% GDP growth.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that our current path is not sustainable.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

L0L @ you thinking you have any credibility here.

You're obviously still getting your "facts" from the same sources who told you Romney was going to win in a landslide.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Hey, if Boehner's smart, he'll either rubber stamp this and let America see the oncoming carnage firsthand, or will implement things like movie excise taxes, capping mortgage deductions at $250k, taxing the hell out of trust funds, foundation money, and a TON on inheritances. See if the blue states really mean what they say or whether they b**** and moan when it's actually implemented.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Even their party's God disagrees with them...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oooops!

More bad news for Ayn Rand acolytes...

Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 07:45 AM PST
Norquist tax pledge supporters lose majority in House, shrink in Senate

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

^

L0L @ you thinking you have any credibility here.

You're obviously still getting your "facts" from the same sources who told you Romney was going to win in a landslide.

WTF are you talking about bozo? The CBO projects that Obama's tax raise on "the rich" would generate about $82B.

What is your plan for the remaining $1T deficit? Nothing? That's what I thought....just like the last 4 years. Massive debt created by unprecedented government expansion, without raising taxes on the middle-class to pay for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Unless of course you kick the can down the road, which Obama will undoubtedly do.

Why pay for the debt you create as long as the Obama supporters get their "free" money?

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Obama's plan of "raising taxes on the rich" would only generate about $82B annually, and would not cut the federal deficit below $1T.

In effect, it really does nothing to close the deficit, or keep the U.S. solvent long-term.

Obama's dirty secret is, the only way to keep the U.S. solvent long-term, while paying for his unprecedented government expansion, is to DRASTICALLY increase taxes on the middle-class.

That means going back to the Clinton era tax rates for EVERYONE, and closing ALL the income tax deductions, including the mortgage interest rate deduction.

Of course, if he were to actually be forced to pay for his government expansion, he never would have been re-elected. So, we are stuck increasing debt 7.5% (of GDP) every year, with only 1% GDP growth.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that our current path is not sustainable.

I'll pay more in taxes just to FORCE THESE RICH BASTARDS THAT THINK THEY ARE ABOVE IT ALL TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE............................................. .............

gET BACK in your hole

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

I'll pay more in taxes just to FORCE THESE RICH BASTARDS THAT THINK THEY ARE ABOVE IT ALL TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE............................................. .............

gET BACK in your hole

Unfortunately, you can't afford it.

I pity your staunch anti-rich stance, because the CBO has shown that even increasing the federal income tax rate to 39.6% doesn't get you much. You see, there just aren't that many rich people with taxable income to make much of a difference.

So you're solution is to raise taxes on the middle-class to the tune of $1T per year, just to pay for Obama's policies? Good luck with that.

You see, there is no solution to create 24% of GDP in federal revenues that would keep the U.S. solvent, and the economy growing at the same time. Obama will add $1T to the federal debt, every year for the next 4 years, and in 2016 (when the U.S. is $20T) union/welfare morons like you, will once again, act like it doesn't matter.

Raising the SS tax rate back up to 6.2%, raising ALL tax rates back to Clinton era levels, and eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, could (maybe) pay for 24% of GDP in government spending. For the average taxpayer, that is an increase of about $5000 yearly in taxes, on top of what they are already paying.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

I'll pay more in taxes just to FORCE THESE RICH BASTARDS THAT THINK THEY ARE ABOVE IT ALL TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE............................................. .............

gET BACK in your hole

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Unfortunately, you can't afford it.

I pity your staunch anti-rich stance, because the CBO has shown that even increasing the federal income tax rate to 39.6% doesn't get you much. You see, there just aren't that many rich people with taxable income to make much of a difference.

So you're solution is to raise taxes on the middle-class to the tune of $1T per year, just to pay for Obama's policies? Good luck with that.

You see, there is no solution to create 24% of GDP in federal revenues that would keep the U.S. solvent, and the economy growing at the same time. Obama will add $1T to the federal debt, every year for the next 4 years, and in 2016 (when the U.S. is $20T) union/welfare morons like you, will once again, act like it doesn't matter.

Raising the SS tax rate back up to 6.2%, raising ALL tax rates back to Clinton era levels, and eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, could (maybe) pay for 24% of GDP in government spending. For the average taxpayer, that is an increase of about $5000 yearly in taxes, on top of what they are already paying.

Still refusing to argue against anything but strawmen eh? Just about everyone (I won't claim all) on the left have been calling for a balanced approach that includes BOTH spending cuts AND revenue increases.

Several months (at the least) and you are still too dishonest to acknowledge that. You're a real piece of work.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Hey, if Boehner's smart, he'll either rubber stamp this and let America see the oncoming carnage firsthand, or will implement things like movie excise taxes, capping mortgage deductions at $250k, taxing the hell out of trust funds, foundation money, and a TON on inheritances. See if the blue states really mean what they say or whether they b**** and moan when it's actually implemented.

great so because Holloywood supports the dems you want to tax movies? it is a funny idea but those taxes would only be paid by middle class moms and dads wanting to take families to movies.

You will go to the movies, pay a tax, not get to drink soda or have butter on popcorn because Michelle Obama said its bad for you. OBAMATHEATER!

na sorry even though hollywood a bunch of morons and degenerates i still want them taxed more.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by pricejj

WTF are you talking about bozo? The CBO projects that Obama's tax raise on "the rich" would generate about $82B.

As always, you're full of crap. That's not at all what the CBO said.

This has already been discussed ad nauseum, but you've made it clear that you refuse to stop posting your Faux News propaganda even after it's been discredited.

You're a complete waste of server space.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

CBO: Nearly $1 Trillion Saved By Letting Bush Tax Cuts Over $250,000 Expire

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

As always, you're full of crap. That's not at all what the CBO said.

This has already been discussed ad nauseum, but you've made it clear that you refuse to stop posting your Faux News propaganda even after it's been discredited.

You're a complete waste of server space.

HA HA HA HA!!!!!

The problem is until the underlying perceptions are met with honest dialog any legitimate concepts will perish in transit. The problem with greed is their is no reasonable way to point it out.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

CBO: Nearly $1 Trillion Saved By Letting Bush Tax Cuts Over $250,000 Expire

By: David Dayen Monday August 27, 2012 9:34 am

TweetTweet12
digg stumbleupon

The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that ending the Bush tax cuts for earners on income over the first $250,000 would contribute $950 billion over a ten-year period. $823 billion of that would come from the increased revenue, and another $127 billion would arise from the lower interest on the associated debt. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities added that this could be done without very much risk to the economy, which stands to reason, because the wealthy would be far more likely to park any tax relief in the bank rather than spend it in the economy:

Prior CBO analysis showed the minimal economic risk this would pose in the short-term. CBO previously concluded that extending only the so-called “middle class” tax cuts on income below $250,000, instead of extending all of the tax cuts, would “be more cost-effective in boosting output and employment in the short run because the higher-income households that would probably spend a smaller fraction of any increase in their after-tax income would receive a smaller share of the reduction in taxes (relative to current law).”

This $950 billion approaches the $1.2 trillion that would be needed to offset the sequester, the automatic cuts to defense and discretionary programs scheduled for the first of the year. Nancy Pelosi and others have said that they could take the budget contributions from letting the tax cuts over $250,000 expire and apply them to offsetting the sequester. This gets you within $250 billion of a total offset, or at least delaying the trigger for several years.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

CBO: Nearly $1 Trillion Saved By Letting Bush Tax Cuts Over $250,000 Expire

Problem... that trillion "saved" (taken out of the economy) is over 10 years. Were putting that much on the credit card EVERY year.

These aren't solutions. Just political recriminations wrapped up as answers for people who don't pay enough attention.

[BowlenBall]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Problem... that trillion "saved" (taken out of the economy) is over 10 years. Were putting that much on the credit card EVERY year.

These aren't solutions. Just political recriminations wrapped up as answers for people who don't pay enough attention.

So... you'd rather pass up a $100 billion a year savings because it's not $1 trillion?

Gotta start somewhere, my man....

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by BowlenBall

So... you'd rather pass up a $100 billion a year savings because it's not $1 trillion?

Gotta start somewhere, my man....

Exactly. No one claims that increasing tax revenues will solve the problem on their own, but they certainly need to be part of the equation (frankly, the Bush tax cuts will need to be allowed to expire in their entirety once the recession is over). Dems have shown a willingness to give ground on spending cuts, but GOP refuses to give ground on letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top two income brackets even though poll after poll shows 60+ percent support of that.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

You don't have to be rich to understand that rich people are already paying all the tax.

And why would you care about this, or oppose it, to the extent it's true (which it isn't)? They own everything, including you. Why do you care if the tax rate on levels of income you'll never see go up a little bit? I'd like to see you put together a logical, rational argument defending your ludicrous position on this.

[Rohirrim]

Why isn't stashing wealth offshore illegal?

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by TonyR

And why would you care about this, or oppose it, to the extent it's true (which it isn't)? They own everything, including you. Why do you care if the tax rate on levels of income you'll never see go up a little bit? I'd like to see you put together a logical, rational argument defending your ludicrous position on this.

Cause I believe the govt already taxes us all enough. I don't make over 250 grand as a household. But the thing is thats not all liberals do. Sure this time they are saying middle class will be left out. In the meantime the liberals of CA just added to our sales tax, highest in the nation now. And the city of Los Angeles may add another half cent sales tax inside LA. Liberals want high taxes everywhere, that is why I oppose their policies. When the govt takes from the rich, the rich just take from us with higher prices.

Later Obama will want to do something about global warming and he will probably do some sort of tax on energy that also gets past to us.


B

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Cause I believe the govt already taxes us all enough...

Yes I suppose it's fair to argue that it does tax "us" all enough, although federal tax rates are at or near all time lows. But I don't know why you'd be opposed to higher levels of income being taxed at slightly higher rates, particularly considering the fact that they're radically lower now than in the past.

[Odysseus]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news...d=SF_INV_River

Blankfein: Rich should pay more in taxes
By Emily Jane Fox @CNNMoney November 14, 2012: 1:47 PM ET


Email Print

Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein said politicians and the business community need to come together to remove the risk of another recession.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein wants politicians and business leaders to work together to avoid the "fiscal cliff," even if it means the rich end up paying more in taxes.

"I believe that tax increases, especially for the wealthiest, are appropriate," Blankfein wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary in Wednesday's edition.

But those taxes must also be met with "serious cuts in discretionary spending and entitlements."

Blankfein argues that marginal tax rates should be kept low, but additional revenue will be generated by expanding the personal income tax base through closing loopholes.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Cause I believe the govt already taxes us all enough. I don't make over 250 grand as a household. But the thing is thats not all liberals do. Sure this time they are saying middle class will be left out. In the meantime the liberals of CA just added to our sales tax, highest in the nation now. And the city of Los Angeles may add another half cent sales tax inside LA. Liberals want high taxes everywhere, that is why I oppose their policies. When the govt takes from the rich, the rich just take from us with higher prices.

Later Obama will want to do something about global warming and he will probably do some sort of tax on energy that also gets past to us.


B

No one WANTS higher taxes, just the adults among us recognize that they are NECESSARY as part of a comprehensive fiscal plan. Us "liberals" want to tax the rich, because taxing the rich is less problematic than taxing consumers -- consumers that drive demand.

We don't have a problem with capital right now. Banks and corporations are making record profits and building massive war chests. We have a problem with DEMAND right now. No one is going to hire people just for the sake of hiring people. They have to have a REASON to hire more folks, and the only REASON that makes sense is more DEMAND.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Odysseus

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news...d=SF_INV_River

Blankfein: Rich should pay more in taxes
By Emily Jane Fox @CNNMoney November 14, 2012: 1:47 PM ET


Email Print

Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein said politicians and the business community need to come together to remove the risk of another recession.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein wants politicians and business leaders to work together to avoid the "fiscal cliff," even if it means the rich end up paying more in taxes.

"I believe that tax increases, especially for the wealthiest, are appropriate," Blankfein wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary in Wednesday's edition.

But those taxes must also be met with "serious cuts in discretionary spending and entitlements."

Blankfein argues that marginal tax rates should be kept low, but additional revenue will be generated by expanding the personal income tax base through closing loopholes.

Some glimmer of sanity, yay. But let's not forget, when he says "entitlements" he means Social Security and Medicare. Those are NOT entitlement programs.