Edit: Been a while since I looked up the numbers but what you are calling for would get us an additional $366 Billion over the next 10 years or $36.6B a year which is less than 4% of this years deficit alone. Hardly the reason that we are running such a huge deficit/racked up such a huge amount of debt as you originally claimed.
Ok let's just take your numbers at face value. I'll give you that since I've insulted your posts enough (and justifiably so).
If you're just talking about using the tax cuts to pay reduce the deficit then yes it's not a good looking picture. The Bush Tax Cuts and starting two wars at the same time has made just turning back the tax rates to the pre-Bush years inadequate for cutting the deficit.
*If* it could be done without threatening the stability in the Middle East, in addition to repealing the Bush Tax rates, I'd advocate ending the spending incurred by the wars with a total withdrawal of troops and any and all contractors from Iraq and Afghannistan within 6 months.
Having said that. Having the extra $36 billion dollars a year for use in well thought out investments that benefit the public is much better than using it to line the pockets of "job creators" who instead of creating jobs have chosen to sit on the money.
Investing some of that $36 billion in infrastructure and highway improvement or education may seem like a zero sum game in terms of deficit spending, but it's much more productive for the economy than giving it to people who have chosen on their wealth instead of doing something like, Oh I don't know...... Creating some FUCKING JOBS!
We've had these tax cuts for almost 10 years why didn't they create jobs or help reduce the amount of jobs initially lost in the last several months of 2008 or the first months of 2009?
Maybe it's because tax cuts don't always (if ever) create jobs....
Getting back to investing the billions that would be realized by repealing the Bush tax cuts... we could invest them in this country...
For Example
From the
Treasury's report on Infrasstructure Investment
Investing in Infrastructure Uses Underutilized Resources
· Among those who gain employment as a result of additional infrastructure investment, the average unemployment rate has averaged approximately 13 percent over the past twelve months. This is more than one and one-half times the current national unemployment rate. Within the construction sector, which accounts for the majority of direct employment resulting from infrastructure investment, the unemployment rate has averaged 15.6 percent over the past twelve months.
Supporting the Middle Class
· Investing in transportation infrastructure creates middle-class jobs. Our analysis suggests that 61 percent of the jobs directly created by investing in infrastructure would be in the construction sector, 12 percent would be in the manufacturing sector, and 7 percent would be in the retail and wholesale trade sectors, for a total of 80 percent in these three sectors.
Woudn't you want to use some of that $36.6 billion a year to improve our infrastructure and help create jobs instead of giving more money to invest in questionable ventures (that might turn into the next housing bubble) to people who still would earn greater than $10k a month even after the entirety of their income was taxed at 39.5% (Clinton's top marginal tax rate iirc)?
Just a note the tax system doesn't work that way. Person who earns $250k+ a year pays the same tax rate on their first $50K a year as the person who only makes $50k a year (before you take into account tax credits given for lower incomes) then pays the higher rates on the incomes over a certain amount.
I don't know about some people on these boards but I would. Because as someone said tax cuts paid for with borrowed money is probably not wise.
We could also help invest in education. Remember that old addage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
Well education helps keep people out of prison. The incarceration rate for dropouts is higher than the incarceration rate for High School graduates. Additionally we're paying to keep people in prison versus having a person with a high school education being more likely to be going to college or otherwise being a productive member of society.
Remember the G.I. Bill it helped send several million returning soldiers to college when it was first implemented after WWII. Much more than the several hundred thousand that was thought would actually take advantage of the G.I. Bill.
That program produced the
238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 450,000 engineers
who helped this country maintain a technological edge for much of the 20th century.
It also provided
240,000 accountants, 17,000 journalists, 22,000 dentists - along with a million lawyers, nurses, businessmen, artists, actors, writers, pilots and others.
who helped improve the quality of life in this country in tangible as well as intangible ways.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/-45737--.html
In terms of hard numbers the G.I. Bill returned about seven dollars into the economy for every dollar spent to invest in the program.
This proved a fruitful investment: For every tax dollar spent, a 1988 congressional study indicated, there was a $7 return in the form of increased productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue.
Does this mean that all investments made with the savings from repealing the Bush Tax cuts would return as much.
Most likely not but after watching the havoc caused by these tax cuts enacted with borrowed money as the person quoted below pointed out.....
I would rather see the U.S. start tightening its belt and being more fiscally responsible with a repeal on the Bush Tax rates for people who would be "hurt" the least by the return to Clinton tax rates.
for example using simplified figures
Clinton top rate of 39.5%......(250,000 - (250,000 * 0.395)) / 12 = $12,604.17
Bush top rate of 35%............(250,000 - (250,000 * 0.350)) / 12 = $13,541.67
After all does making a couple of thousand dollars less a month really hurt you when you would still be grossing over $10k a month after federal taxes?
Especially when it's compared to the majority of people who make somewhere closer to the median income of about $27k-29k
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/01/alan-greenspan-extending_n_666549.html
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.
"They do not," said Greenspan.
"I'm very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money and the problem that we have gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money," he said. "And at the end of the day that proves disastrous. My view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here."
No I am not arguing that repealing the tax rates passed under Bush would work by itself.
After all those tax rates have had several years along with an unnecessary war and a recession to do the damage they have done.
Undoing damage always takes more effort than causing it, unfortunately.
However, when President Obama's administration proposed the repeal of those tax rates for those who are still doing very well it was not done so without offering spending cuts as well.
Which unfortunately seems to be conveniently overlooked by the Bush apologists.
My argument (and where I differ from Greenspan who I agree with on the issue of tax cuts in recent years) is that we could use those "mere" billions from a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the upper incomes for smart and needed investments in the future of this country... especially if as you say they are too small to make a dent in the deficit (and by extension the actual Debt).
As the example of the GI bill shows it's possible for well made investments to return much more to this economy than the initial outlay in funds.
It took time however which is why the Republican insistence on extending these tax rate for people who make an exceptional amount of income compared to some 80% to 90% who make less than $100k a year is a source of consternation.
Especially when a person fiscal conservatives have often quoted before says that the tax cuts in recent years do not help increase productivity and revenue.
Facebook
Twitter