Is this a defensible position?

[Jhhnn]

"Here are the likely cuts."

Nothing more than conjecture. Another biased piece of tripe from the George Soros funded Center for American Progress. Designed to rouse the faithful and from the posts here, it's working. Newsflash, we're broke. Wishing doesn't change that.

We'll see how the cuts shape up. The giveaways on the right side of the chart are unlikely to end, bet on that.

Broke? Hardly. We just refuse to collect the revenues required to avoid deficits, because those revenues would necessarily need to come from the Rich, who are now wealthier than ever at the expense of everybody else. Their servants in the Republican party intend to keep it that way, too.

 

[Matt1970]

And yet the 2003 tax cuts for the upper and middle class actually increased revenue above inflation.

 

[Acanthus]

"Here are the likely cuts."

Nothing more than conjecture. Another biased piece of tripe from the George Soros funded Center for American Progress. Designed to rouse the faithful and from the posts here, it's working. Newsflash, we're broke. Wishing doesn't change that.

We are broke because we don't tax the rich at an appropriate level.

We therefore cannot afford the basic social programs that other first world nations deploy to keep their citizens safe, productive, and generally happy.

The Center for American Progress is not a "fringe" group and the sources are sited in the graphic. Even if you feel that the source is biased, argue with the data and not the source, or the results of these changes you feel are appropriate. How do you think things will be impacted by these changes? It is painfully obvious that these cuts are on the table with the austerity bill we passed.

It has been repeatedly proven that cutting social programs with such aggressive bravado will cause social instability in the forms of unrest, crime, drug use, and a dramatic decrease in overall productivity in the average american citizen.

When you create a generation of unemployable citizens, the results are not a logical leap away. Cutting education for 90 million children and 25 million college students should not be a priority or even an option. In an environment where increasingly a high school diploma is not enough to secure you a living wage... How does cutting education make sense?

 

[Acanthus]

And yet the 2003 tax cuts for the upper and middle class actually increased revenue above inflation.

It was a housing bubble. I don't know if you were there or not.

Arguing this would also agree that Clintons surplus was due to tax increases (internet bubble).

Don't bring shit economics into this argument, please.

 

[Jhhnn]

Don't bring shit economics into this argument, please.

Elephants create a lot of poo, and it has to go somewhere... best to fling it rather than suffocate under it...

 

[Engineer]

And yet the 2003 tax cuts for the upper and middle class actually increased revenue above inflation.

and it kept on giving us higher and higher revenues too.

 

[JS80]

Big flaw: high income =/= wealthy
Another flaw: higher tax rates does not guarantee increased tax revenues

 

[JS80]

and it kept on giving us higher and higher revenues too.

Nice you just proved his point

 

[Engineer]

Nice you just proved his point

Up until 2007..which was what? Oh...a housing bubble? You don't think that a housing bubble, which lead to the economic growth that we had during the time, had anything to do with higher government revenues, do you?

You don't think that coming off of a recession in 2003 would have given us higher revenues do you?

Nope...not any of those.

 

[Engineer]

Big flaw: high income =/= wealthy
Another flaw: higher tax rates does not guarantee increased tax revenues

And neither do lower tax rates.

#LaughferCurve

Good paying jobs do but you're not for that either....

#outsourcingchump

 

[BoberFett]

We need to raise taxes. We also need to cut those programs. Those columns are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Double Trouble]

We are broke because we don't tax the rich at an appropriate level.

That's simply plain stupid. Even if you taxed "the rich" however you define them, at 99%, it wouldn't even begin to cover the annual deficit, and we'd still be exactly as broke, if not worse. Can we give the tired "tax the rich" argument a rest already? It's a ploy by those in power to keep people arguing over meaningless drivel while they fleece all of us.

The Center for American Progress is not a "fringe" group and the sources are sited in the graphic.

It is a fringe group, mainstream America does not share it's "progressive" views like some nutcases like Craig or Soros would.

Even if you feel that the source is biased, argue with the data and not the source, or the results of these changes you feel are appropriate.

The information provided is simply at too high of a level to see what the actual effects are and what options are on the table. This is the graphical equivalent of a 10 second sound-byte explanation for an issue that merits a multi-hour discussion. It's a political sound byte, worthless and I'm sure completely biased and one sided considering it's source.

How does cutting education make sense?

Because we waste an incredible amount on education and get poor results. The spending needs to be re-focused, the NEA needs to be driven out of the process. Throwing more good money after bad is dumb.

 

[Double Trouble]

We need to raise taxes. We also need to cut those programs. Those columns are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed. But before they raise taxes, I want them to get the spending side of the house in order. Then, and only then, would I be willing to see tax increases to help close the deficit. Not before.

 

[Jhhnn]

We need to raise taxes. We also need to cut those programs. Those columns are not mutually exclusive.

The programs in the column on the left benefit the most vulnerable in our society. The giveaways in the right column merely enhance the incomes of people who don't need it, who won't suffer more than minor inconvenience by their removal, if that.

Who ya gonna serve? the people who need it, or the people who don't?

"Get a job!" doesn't apply in today's economy, either.

Not to mention that the whole bit about cutting first & raising taxes second is completely dishonest. After the cuts are done, Repubs will likely say we don't need to raise taxes... that cuts alone will solve the problem, and proceed to demand more, hold the economy & the full faith & credit of the Government of the People hostage to their whims, again.

 

[JS80]

We need to raise taxes.

Why? Effective tax rates have remained within a ~2% variance for the past 3 decades.

 

[Engineer]

Why? Effective tax rates have remained within a ~2% variance for the past 3 decades.

On who? Maybe the middle class. Couldn't be the lower classes now could it...as from what I hear, they don't pay taxes at all. :hmm:

 

[ProfJohn]

The CAP has their own agenda, no doubt, but claiming them to be "fringe" is grossly unfair.

If you don't like their graph, post a different one from a source you favor. The graph is meaningless only to the extent that you want it to be.

Read the fine print.

"author's calculations based on Congressional Budget Office, "Budget Options (2000)"

Couldn't find anything more up to date or perhaps the 2000 numbers help skew things in their direction?

I would suggest the later, as Fern's thread points out the Bush tax cuts for everyone are costing us less than $100 billion a year. And this chart wants us to believe that the cuts of just the top 2% are worth $69 billion of that? (assuming these are 10 year totals)

BTW the Bush tax cuts got a two year extension and are suppose to go away after next year so there is no way they are going to cost us another $690 billion. UNLESS we re-extend them which the super committee can't do unless it finds cuts some place else.

 

[ProfJohn]

The last tax cut was in 2003, so why did revenue drop in 2008, five years later?

Could it be that there are other factors involved beyond tax rates??

Could it be that returning rates to Clinton era rates would still leave us far below the revenue high mark?

Perhaps our problem isn't that rates are too low, but that income and economic activity is too low? I guess the rich just aren't making enough money for us to take from them?

 

[Engineer]

The last tax cut was in 2003, so why did revenue drop in 2008, five years later?

Could it be that there are other factors involved beyond tax rates??

Could it be that returning rates to Clinton era rates would still leave us far below the revenue high mark?

Perhaps our problem isn't that rates are too low, but that income and economic activity is too low? I guess the rich just aren't making enough money for us to take from them?

I already stated that good paying, wealth creating jobs are what we need....multiple times. Tax cuts or tax raises are not going to help this situation one bit, period.

But...of course, if we do what you want:

Raise taxes on the bottom 45% that pay no federal taxes (it would only be fair, right?)...

and

Lower taxes on those at the top (job creators), we'll be just booming in no time.

I'm starting to think it's time to give lower tax rates to small business owners (50 or fewer employees) as well as tax credits and then raise taxes on those that make $500,000 (or possibly higher) in order to be tax neutral. If the top earners aren't going to create the needed jobs, maybe re-balancing the tax revenue system toward small business owners, which create the majority of our jobs, will work.

 

[JS80]

On who? Maybe the middle class. Couldn't be the lower classes now could it...as from what I hear, they don't pay taxes at all. :hmm:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/effectivetaxrate.asp

 

[ProfJohn]

And let's not forget that these aren't actually cuts!

The deal will still give us another $8 billion MORE in debt over 10 years.
We will actually have MORE spending in the future than we have now.

Only in the mind of a liberal is a reduction in future spending a cut.

 

[Engineer]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/effectivetaxrate.asp

I noticed that AFTER I posted but do you have something that shows that EFFECTIVE rate is constant (or within 2&#37 over that period?

Edit: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

It's interesting that EVERY quintile has went down during that period yet the effective RATE is the same? Would seem to indicate that the top rate, which is the only rate above 20% is the driving factor and shows that more and more money is going to the top rate folks while those below the 20% rate are getting less and less.

 

[ProfJohn]

Raise taxes on the bottom 45% that pay no federal taxes (it would only be fair, right?)...

and

Lower taxes on those at the top (job creators), we'll be just booming in no time.

If I keep repeating it then maybe you'll get my idea right.

1. Don't do anything to tax rates today because the economy sucks.
2. Long term raise the amount paid by EVERYONE rich and poor. The poor must bear some of the burden just as the rich can bear a little bit more as well.

The best solution though is a complete overhaul of the system that reduces rates and eliminates loopholes.

But congress won't allow that because it takes away their ability to use the tax system to provide them with power.

 

[Engineer]

But the TEA party won't allow that because they refuse ANY tax increases and actually want cuts (capital gains to zero, top rate of 25%, flattened (i.e. everyone pay the same rate) rates, etc

Yep.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here is an example of the 'cuts' we are about to see...

Department of Health and Human Services
2012 $270 billion
2013 $299 billion
2013 $329 billion
all the way up to
2021 $496 billion

How "DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMIT" maybe we can find cuts in there?
2012 $684 billion & $359 billion (security and non-security
2013 $686 billion & $361 billion
2014 $1,066 billion
2015 $1,086 billion
2016 $1,107 billion

Still no cuts... wonder where all the cuts we keep hearing about are?