Ending Bush Tax-Cut for rich would save $1T plus bring about greater income equality.

[ivwshane]

It ain't my plan asshat. $95 Billion is barely going to cover the check we just wrote to Sandy Relief.

Can't argue the points, insult the messenger.

You were saying?


Lol

 

[Matt1970]

You were saying?


Lol

Go home, your mom misses you.

 

[ivwshane]

Go home, your mom misses you.

And there it is, the double down!

 

[Darwin333]

Everyone should read this, and see why we need to end the tax cuts for the rich (250,000+).

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3873

Basically we would save close to 950 Billion dollars over the next 10 years,
we would see much greater income equality as the rich would pay a fairer share of taxes.

This isn't some left wing liberal group either, it is a non-partisan think tank.

I would like to see what rosy GDP growth numbers they are using but it seems like you missed the key part of the article.

$100B a year is significant but barely a bite out of our deficit. Now ending ALL of the bush tax cuts would bring in $450B a year or $4.5T over the next ten years, that would be getting somewhere.

 

[Darwin333]

The only reason dems aren't proposing raising taxes on the middle class is because they are smart enough to know that in this economy a middle class tax increase would further slow the economy. That's not the case with having higher taxes on the rich.

Wrong. They want to get reelected. Period. The end.

If it had anything to do with the economy they would actually raise the taxes so we can start weening ourselves off of this massive debt dependency before it blows up in our faces.

 

[bozack]

People should actually read the report, it gives a good reason to raise taxes on the rich.

Remember this isn't some left wing fringe group this is the respected Center on Budget and Policy Priorities or CBPP.

So doesn't the CBPP lean a bit to the left, while they don't outwardly admit it Soros contributed 3 million there this year...

Regardless, raising taxes on the top 2% does nothing tangible for deficit reduction without massive entitlement cutbacks, heck even if the top 2% were taxed at 98% of their income we would still be in the red....

Either they have to cut programs in a major way, or bite the bullet and truly starting getting everyone to pay more, the biggest group, the coveted middle class, will as usual bear the brunt of this with higher taxes if they want any type of meaningful revenue generation.

Also what so many fail to realize is that the Clinton era taxes were acceptable as the economy was in a much better state and people could take one for the team without really getting impacted that badly, whereas now the economy is in the shitter, another down year for retail, jobless claims on the rise, and you have the usual cast of morons on the left in here clamoring for higher taxes abound...pretty laughable.

 

[ivwshane]

So doesn't the CBPP lean a bit to the left, while they don't outwardly admit it Soros contributed 3 million there this year...

Regardless, raising taxes on the top 2% does nothing tangible for deficit reduction without massive entitlement cutbacks, heck even if the top 2% were taxed at 98% of their income we would still be in the red....

Either they have to cut programs in a major way, or bite the bullet and truly starting getting everyone to pay more, the biggest group, the coveted middle class, will as usual bear the brunt of this with higher taxes if they want any type of meaningful revenue generation.

Also what so many fail to realize is that the Clinton era taxes were acceptable as the economy was in a much better state and people could take one for the team without really getting impacted that badly, whereas now the economy is in the shitter, another down year for retail, jobless claims on the rise, and you have the usual cast of morons on the left in here clamoring for higher taxes abound...pretty laughable.

While its true that there are multiple sides to the issue (spending, taxes, and jobs), as you indicated the economy isnt stable enough to do all of the above (which btw Obama said in his first term, get the economy going and then cut government), so of all the options which do you think we could do first?

Taxing the rich more won't kill the economy and it will help reduce our debt (it's a start and thats better than nothing).


This idea that we have to fix everything in one go or that we should only do things that have a huge impact on the debt is ridiculous and quite frankly, stupid.

 

[Jhhnn]

So doesn't the CBPP lean a bit to the left, while they don't outwardly admit it Soros contributed 3 million there this year...

Facts have a liberal bias.

Regardless, raising taxes on the top 2% does nothing tangible for deficit reduction without massive entitlement cutbacks, heck even if the top 2% were taxed at 98% of their income we would still be in the red....

The revenue gains are significant, and a start in the right direction.

Either they have to cut programs in a major way, or bite the bullet and truly starting getting everyone to pay more, the biggest group, the coveted middle class, will as usual bear the brunt of this with higher taxes if they want any type of meaningful revenue generation.

Tax increases must start at the top to be politically palatable. Just the way it is.

Also what so many fail to realize is that the Clinton era taxes were acceptable as the economy was in a much better state and people could take one for the team without really getting impacted that badly, whereas now the economy is in the shitter, another down year for retail, jobless claims on the rise, and you have the usual cast of morons on the left in here clamoring for higher taxes abound...pretty laughable.

You're trying to straddle the issues, have it both ways. Cutting programs will have a very negative effect, given that such money is spent right back into the economy. Raising taxes on capital gains & that share of taxpayer income over $250K will have negligible effect on demand, because that money isn't being spent, anyway, but rather saved. That's why interest rates are low- an excess of savings as compared to the demand to borrow money. That demand won't increase until employment increases, something that the so-called job creators are failing to accomplish. Therefore, govt must spend to create demand to create employment, unless we just want to sink further into an economic funk.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

We do need to reduce spending, but now is the worst possible time to enact austerity measures. We already have easily verifiable proof that this simply doesn't work to grow the economy in a recession, it only makes things worse. Worse off, the things conservatives want to cut are vital to lower and middle income Americans.

Either conservatives are too stupid to understand this or they fundamentally don't care about anyone but the wealthy.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Duplicate

 

[LTC8K6]

It was already well known that a lot of new spending was coming that would offset any revenue increases. This was no secret. Much of the new revenue will go to new spending.

 

[thraashman]

$95 Billion a year fixes a $1 Trillion a year problem. How can you argue with that?

Of course, unless a single thing fixes the entire problem then we shouldn't do it at all. That's why we should cut funding to PBS and NPR because they would save a small fraction in comparison to the tax raises. Makes perfect sense!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Of course, unless a single thing fixes the entire problem then we shouldn't do it at all. That's why we should cut funding to PBS and NPR because they would save a small fraction in comparison to the tax raises. Makes perfect sense!

Jeebus - one dumbass that said something stupid about cutting PBS funding that was running under the republican candidate means every REAL conservative had that same view, right? :awe:

No real conservative on this forum wanted Romney. How he made it as far as he did is still in all honestly beyond me.

The biggest problem is the tit sucking and illegal immigrants (un-taxed work, speaking). 2 Groups that can take but won't give. Most people have a problem understanding that social welfare is heavily addicted and expected now. One person succeeds, they tell 10 others "Yo man, get in on dis shit". You can try to make calculations all you want saying it's not that much money - but your closed mind logic isn't understanding that their taking is two-fold. While most Americans are NOT taking but they ARE giving - the tit sucking leeches TAKE PLENTY but contribute NOTHING. It's not just a loss. It's a lose-lose.

 

[dmcowen674]

People should actually read the report, it gives a good reason to raise taxes on the rich.

Remember this isn't some left wing fringe group this is the respected Center on Budget and Policy Priorities or CBPP.

They are starting to read it.

The rich are feeling the heat from Real Americans.

Many of them are already leaving the Country as they should.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Of course, unless a single thing fixes the entire problem then we shouldn't do it at all. That's why we should cut funding to PBS and NPR because they would save a small fraction in comparison to the tax raises. Makes perfect sense!

Pissing down a dry and deep well is not going to fix our problems. That is what these tax hikes amount to in the end, us pissing down a well that has long ago dried up and is to deep to be filled up by specious bullshit class warfare rhetoric against your fellow American. Of which these fellow Americans are in fact going to now be paying lions share of taxes which still won't do a damn thing to solve our SPENDING problems. So congratulations, now what sacrifices are you/we going to make to fill the rest of this proverbial well again?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

We do need to reduce spending, but now is the worst possible time to enact austerity measures. We already have easily verifiable proof that this simply doesn't work to grow the economy in a recession, it only makes things worse. Worse off, the things conservatives want to cut are vital to lower and middle income Americans.

Either conservatives are too stupid to understand this or they fundamentally don't care about anyone but the wealthy.

Reducing spending fine. The 3 biggest spending items are SS, Medicare/caid and all other entitlement programs, and the Military. Hint: Just slashing military spending will not cure our problems just like only taxing successful Americans did not and will not cure our 1 trillion a year spending problem.

 

[First]

And there it is, the double down!

Poor guy must get ravaged in Vegas. Goes all in with 2-7 no doubt.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Reducing spending fine. The 3 biggest spending items are SS, Medicare/caid and all other entitlement programs, and the Military. Hint: Just slashing military spending will not cure our problems just like only taxing successful Americans did not and will not cure our 1 trillion a year spending problem.

No shit Sherlock. Everyone in the entire world but Congress knows exactly how to fix this problem.

 

[marincounty]

Reducing spending fine. The 3 biggest spending items are SS, Medicare/caid and all other entitlement programs, and the Military. Hint: Just slashing military spending will not cure our problems just like only taxing successful Americans did not and will not cure our 1 trillion a year spending problem.

It only took eight years of GWB to take surpluses "as far as the eye can see" and turn them into 1 trillion a year deficits.
Sorry if I don't believe anything righties say on the economy, they're proven failures.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Lol.

I guess if there isnt a magic bullet to pay off the entire debt then all options to do so are a waste of time.

That's some superior thinking you fellows have there!

Then please enlighten us with your superior brain and tell us how the rest of the shortfall will be handled.

Proven realities...

Give us more CPU power and we'll develop apps that will use it
Give us more memory and we'll develop apps that will use it
Give the .gov more money and they will spend it

The $95B/yr in in new revenue will result in $190B/yr in new spending. The .gov gets bigger, the private sector gets smaller. Congrats.

 

[wiin]

Everyone should read this, and see why we need to end the tax cuts for the rich (250,000+).

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3873

Basically we would save close to 950 Billion dollars over the next 10 years,
we would see much greater income equality as the rich would pay a fairer share of taxes.

This isn't some left wing liberal group either, it is a non-partisan think tank.

Greater income equality? Hahahaha hehehehehe. As long as there are loopholes, the rich, like the obamas, will get richer and the poor, poorer. But, there is nothing wrong with dreaming about it. Hahaha. ok. i'm done.

 

[Ausm]

Tax cuts pay for themselves and never added a penny to the ginormous deficit we are now enjoying.