Reality check regarding debt ceiling talks

[a777pilot]

Capitol gains is income and ought not be taxed at all.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We DESPERATELY need revenue.

Hmmm...how about we fix the economy to increase revenues?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

1) 1.4T I believe is the amount that was approved during his term.
2) "Deficits going forward" ... this is a debt chart. Debt ceiling pertains to whats already been spent.
3) It "looks like" they're breaking the policy costs up actually. Stimulus since it technically started in W admin, for instance.

In rebuttal, I'd say the chart is more than fair. 300B for the drug benefit is low. And the tax cuts have been more like 4T.

I don't think you understood my point about allocation. For example, the medicare part D costs, the Bush tax cuts (in 2009 and 2010), and such that have continued under Obama. He is the President and his party controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years. He was free to change any of these policies.

I know it's a debt chart, not a deficit chart. However the current fight is about future budgets which have baseline spending levels dramatically increased by Obama. So it's not the most relevant chart to the current debate, and whoever in the Whitehouse published it knows that. It's why you have to be skeptical of analysis coming from someone with an agenda. Even if its technically correct, they are only going to show you the data that helps their case.

 

[xj0hnx]

and tax cuts weren't just for the wealthy.

But those are the only ones that the Class Warfare lovin' Loony Left care about.

 

[IronWing]

But those are the only ones that the Class Warfare lovin' Loony Left care about.

It is class warfare and the rich with their two pet political parties are kicking worker butt.

 

[werepossum]

You're trying to slash Government by taking away from the programs we need the most.

Education, EPA, Green Energy....these are all areas we should be investing in if we want to remain the #1 super power in the world.

We DESPERATELY need revenue. Roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. It's the right thing to do and you know it.

No nation can borrow its way to prosperity. And if we need revenue so badly, then we should roll back taxes on EVERYONE - not that this would make a dent in our deficit spending.

 

[werepossum]

There has been no time in history where by raising capital gains tax has resulted in increased revenue to the government. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. Every time capital gains is lowered, massive increases in revenue result until the rates are raised again.

This is quite true. From a tax revenue standpoint, low capital gains tax rates are an excellent idea. I think though there is a compelling moral argument for taxing capital gains as any other income.

 

[thegimp03]

All the moronic Teapartiers/Conservatives/Republicans need a healthy dose of reality. Your savior GWB is essentially THE reason we are in the mess we are in.

4.4 TRILLION wasted on a USELESS war in Iraq and IRRESPONSIBLE tax cuts for the wealthy.

Need I remind you that Mr. Change has been in the White House now for ~2.5 years and that war is still going on?

 

[theeedude]

Let Bush tax cuts expire and end the wars. That's 4.4Trillion right there.

 

[ProfJohn]

You're trying to slash Government by taking away from the programs we need the most.

Education, EPA, Green Energy....these are all areas we should be investing in if we want to remain the #1 super power in the world.

We DESPERATELY need revenue. Roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. It's the right thing to do and you know it.

Ok, let's end Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy...

That will get us about $75 billion more per year.

Which leaves us with a $700 billion deficit for 2013... Now what do we do?

 

[ProfJohn]

Let Bush tax cuts expire and end the wars. That's 4.4Trillion right there.

Almost...

Removing the Bush tax cuts on EVERYONE would save $2.5 trillion or more over the next decade.

The Iraq war is nearly ended and will cost less than $50 billion next year (I believe)
Afghanistan is currently $100+ billion.

Ending both might save between $1 trillion and $1.5.

So all you have to do now is convince Obama that he should tell the American people that we need to increase taxes on everyone. Good luck getting that through congress.


BTW last tax increase cost 54 Democrats their jobs, don't think you will get many votes on a plan to increase taxes on all Americans.

 

[piasabird]

The Bush War in Iraq was voted on by Congress. It was pre-approved by Congress. It is congress's fault. I would never have voted for it. Where is the cost for Chips? Where is the cost for the O-Bummer Health Care? Where is the cost for Hillary's aid that resulted in a war with Russia? Where is the cost for our war with Libya? Where is the cost for all the additional troops we sent to Afghanistan?

We do not need more revenues we need to cut spending. Only 65% of people on SS and medicair actually retired! The rest is non retirement waste. We can cut the cost of entitlements, Credits, deductions, and corporate welfare. This should include All aid to unwed mothers, and government slut prostitution.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW the chart is insanely biased.

Every penny added by Bush is due to his policies.

But Obama is only held responsible for 3 things??

And where does that $7 trillion number from? Bush only added $5 trillion to the debt.
You can figure out that yourself here:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Debt has already gone up $3.8 trillion since Obama took office.

 

[nonameo]

The Bush War in Iraq was voted on by Congress. It was pre-approved by Congress. It is congress's fault. I would never have voted for it. Where is the cost for Chips? Where is the cost for the O-Bummer Health Care? Where is the cost for Hillary's aid that resulted in a war with Russia? Where is the cost for our war with Libya? Where is the cost for all the additional troops we sent to Afghanistan?

We do not need more revenues we need to cut spending. Only 65% of people on SS and medicair actually retired! The rest is non retirement waste. We can cut the cost of entitlements, Credits, deductions, and corporate welfare. This should include All aid to unwed mothers, and government slut prostitution.

It's bush's fault AND congress's fault for letting it happen. It's OUR fault for voting them in, supporting it, and then not voting for better people later on down the road!

We need to get the economy going again, AND we need to cut spending, increase revenues(at least semi-temporarily) however, these 2 things are generally incompatible.

You can keep the debt from getting worse by cutting spending. However, you can only squeeze that turnip so much. You've got to have money to pay for it(the debt), and where is the govt. going to get that from? Well, taxes.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ we are going to spend $3.8 trillion next year.

That is $800 billion more than we spent in 2008.
How much of that could we cut without feeling much pain?

I bet we could cut $300 billion off next years budget and 95% of Americans wouldn't even notice the difference...

 

[theeedude]

Almost...

Removing the Bush tax cuts on EVERYONE would save $2.5 trillion or more over the next decade.

The Iraq war is nearly ended and will cost less than $50 billion next year (I believe)
Afghanistan is currently $100+ billion.

Ending both might save between $1 trillion and $1.5.

So all you have to do now is convince Obama that he should tell the American people that we need to increase taxes on everyone. Good luck getting that through congress.


BTW last tax increase cost 54 Democrats their jobs, don't think you will get many votes on a plan to increase taxes on all Americans.

He doesn't need to do get anything through Congress. Bush tax cuts expire automatically at the end of next year. After the election.

 

[Matt1970]

Yeh- I'm sure that cutting taxes & engaging in two wars simultaneously had nothing to do with it, nothing at all...

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/280288/TAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001955.htm

America's wealthiest get the benefits, the rest of us get the bill- standard republican policy for over 30 years.

I never said the wars didn't have anything to do with it, but the bottom dropped out on the federal revenue in March 2000 right when the bubble burst. Bush first tax cut wasn't untill 1 year 3 months later. BTW, he cut everyon'e taxes so saying "the rest of us get the bill" is nonsense.

 

[soundforbjt]

BTW, he cut everyon'e taxes so saying "the rest of us get the bill" is nonsense.

Who got the biggest cuts? "We" are paying for those who got the biggest cuts.

 

[piasabird]

Cut all deductions go to a flat tax. The problem is all of these targeted programs that pit one group of people against another. This will never end unless we go to a flat tax with no loop holes and no deductions. A flat tax would save the united states millions alone in the cost of preparing and reviewing these stupid tax forms.

 

[Matt1970]

Who got the biggest cuts? "We" are paying for those who got the biggest cuts.

The middle class tax rate went from 27 to 25%. How exactly are you paying for it?

 

[woolfe9999]

There has been no time in history where by raising capital gains tax has resulted in increased revenue to the government. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. Every time capital gains is lowered, massive increases in revenue result until the rates are raised again.

This issue is actually far more complicated than you make it out. Notice in this graph how you see a spike up of revenues when the tax rate is lowered, but the revenues fall back down *before* the rate is increased again? This is true of both the spike in revenues in the mid 80's and the late 90's. If there really is an inverse relationship between tax rate and revenues, then this graph does not support it or we wouldn't see revenues dip back down before the tax rate is increased.

What actually happens with capital gains is that since the liability is incurred at the time of sale of assets, when the rate is lowered, investors liquidate their assets at that time to take advantage of the lower rate. Hence, you get a temporary spike up in revenues. If we were to increase the rate and leave it stable over the long haul, the evidence suggests that revenues would increase over time. Here is a CBO study from 1988 that analyzes 40 years of data and discusses this exact issue in detail:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/84xx/doc8449/88-CBO-007.pdf

There is valid point here that is embedded in your data. Increasing the capital gains rate will not give us a short term spike up in revenues and in fact, it will probably have the opposite effect for a several years. Meaning it probably isn't the solution for the short to mid term deficit crisis we're facing right now.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

BTW, he cut everyon'e taxes so saying "the rest of us get the bill" is nonsense.

The cuts were weighted to favor the rich. That's why they were passed at all. Smaller cuts were included for 'everyone' to make them more sellable politically.

Clearly, that was effective, because you are here parroting their sales pitch, so the scam worked well on you. Tax cuts favoring the rich are nothing but a wealth transfer to the rich.

 

[nonameo]

~~~~

- wolf

my understanding is that capital gains taxes make up a non trivial but at the same time not huge portion of income tax receipts? It is not like increasing or decreasing capital gains tax is going to do anything but change small beans(or at best, medium sized beans )

but at the same time, every penny counts.

 

[Craig234]

The middle class tax rate went from 27 to 25%. How exactly are you paying for it?

Add up the amount paid PLUS the amount owed in debt.

Not just the amount paid so far. ALL the 'Bush tax cuts' come from borrowed money.

 

[Craig234]

Cut all deductions go to a flat tax.

Two separate issues. A flat tax simply transfers wealth to the rich.

The problem is all of these targeted programs that pit one group of people against another. This will never end unless we go to a flat tax with no loop holes and no deductions.

Yes, after a flat tax, the rich and poor will have no conflict in interest.