How about this: Cut spending and Raise taxes 2-5% on the top 1%

[kaz]

How about you cut spending and cut taxes on everyone paying them?

That's where the liberals have us. Only the rich pay taxes anymore, so any cut is a cut for the rich. Then they go back to the same well over and over and over...

See the problem is they consider anyone who has a job as rich for tax purposes.

Yes, if you live off your own skills and effort, you are greedy

 

[beowolfe]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

I say let the bush tax cuts (all of them) lapse and pay down the debt and eliminate the deficit. Just turn the clock back to November 1, 2000 when the budget was balanced and the economy was booming.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

Currently our spending is too high and our taxes are too low. Yes, a balanced approach of cutting spending and raising taxes makes the most sense.

Taxes are too low?

Yes.

Even a good many conservatives around here are clamoring to start taxing the half of American households that pay NO federal income taxes?

They MUST believe taxes are too low, correct??

But, seriously, taxes are at historically low levels, lowest as a pct. of GDP since 1950. AND we now have a massive debt looming over us, and ongoing deficits adding to the debt.

The idea that tax increases shouldn't be part of the solution to this problem is irrational.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Utter nonsense. While you can't balance the budget entirely with tax hikes, there is no logical reason to believe increasing the rate in top earners will result in reduced revenue.

There is however ample Evidence in the past. Dating back to JFK, Reagan and Bush, that lowering taxes, Especially on the middle and upper rates. Can in fact Increase Revenue. It is logic then to conclude that the Reverse could in certain Cases be true.

It really is basic Economics. Increased Taxes have a slowing effect on the Economy. A slower Economy means less is being taxed, Less people are working, etc. Now if the slowing off sets the increased Tax Revenue from the Increased %, Could in fact result in a net loss of Revenue.

Even Left leaning Economist, and People in this Administration, Under stand and Admit that increased Taxes run a real danger of Slowing the Recovery(Growth) of the economy. JFK, Reagan, and Bush all understood one thing. The Way to increase Revenues is not to increase taxes. It is to grow the Economy and thereby the Tax Base you are taxing. Bushes Cuts did indeed Increase revenue to the Fed. The only problem was Bush Increased Spending at the same time and built up Debt. However that does not change the fact that his So called Tax cuts for the rich, lead to a growth in Revenue. That is fact. And the same principle was proven true By Reagan and JFK before them.

It is important to point out and make very clear that economic growth comes from the private sector. Not by increasing the numbers of federal or state employees.
Government work produces nothing. It only consumes. Yes, government workers spend their earnings but their employment only covers the consumer side of the economy.
Private enterprise satisfies both the consumer economy AND productivity economy.

Historically, there is overwhelming evidence showing each instance where federal tax rates were decreased along with the requisite reductions in discretionary government spending, revenue to the federal government increased while decreasing government deficit.

How much of government spending ends up as private sector growth??

Say, for example, how much do American governments (fed state local etc.) spend on Microsoft products in any given year?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh wow, another novel idea. RAISE TAXES.

Great idea. As of April 1st, the U.S. will have the highest corporate tax rates in the world:

TaxProf Blog: Tax Foundation: On April 1, U.S. Is #1 (World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate)


Let's raise them further so we can make double digit unemployment a structural feature of the economy.

That's the rate, not the real amount paid.

 

[boedicca]

Currently our spending is too high and our taxes are too low. Yes, a balanced approach of cutting spending and raising taxes makes the most sense.

Taxes are too low?

Yes.

Even a good many conservatives around here are clamoring to start taxing the half of American households that pay NO federal income taxes?

They MUST believe taxes are too low, correct??

But, seriously, taxes are at historically low levels, lowest as a pct. of GDP since 1950. AND we now have a massive debt looming over us, and ongoing deficits adding to the debt.

The idea that tax increases shouldn't be part of the solution to this problem is irrational.

Uh. Dood. The reason taxes are low is because over 16% of the labor force is un or under employed. Such people don't pay much in taxes. We don't have an Under Taxed Problem. We have a LACK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH TO CREATE JOBS Problem.

Raising taxes will make it worse.

 

[boedicca]

Oh wow, another novel idea. RAISE TAXES.

Great idea. As of April 1st, the U.S. will have the highest corporate tax rates in the world:

TaxProf Blog: Tax Foundation: On April 1, U.S. Is #1 (World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate)


Let's raise them further so we can make double digit unemployment a structural feature of the economy.

That's the rate, not the real amount paid.

So you would rather have high rates that force companies to lobby the politicians and regulators for tax credits and subsidies to offset the excessive taxes? Cuz that's what we get for having these high rates. Well, that, and more jobs going overseas...

 

[Trajan]

Currently our spending is too high and our taxes are too low. Yes, a balanced approach of cutting spending and raising taxes makes the most sense.

Taxes are too low?

Yes.

Even a good many conservatives around here are clamoring to start taxing the half of American households that pay NO federal income taxes?

They MUST believe taxes are too low, correct??

But, seriously, taxes are at historically low levels, lowest as a pct. of GDP since 1950. AND we now have a massive debt looming over us, and ongoing deficits adding to the debt.

The idea that tax increases shouldn't be part of the solution to this problem is irrational.

well, I have said before and will say again- the level of expectation via outlays by gov. ahead of pop. growth and inflation has created a DEPENDENCY, in other words don't take anything away now, because we need it.........now that you have given it to us.

I would pay more in taxes IF they cut, and I don't mean .5% of the budget either, I mean CUT, I would gladly pay 5% more in taxes if that were locked in to help get us out of this, BUT it will never happen, those who think like that side of the number line whine about Cowboy Poetry events.


Which tells me and others like me exactly what they are about- we have ramped up the spending and we are keeping it, BUT you can gladly get us out of this by paying more in taxes now that we have created the DEPENDENCY...no thx. screw that.

 

[boedicca]

Tax increases are almost NEVER used to pay down debt. They are used to expand government spending.

And that is why we shouldn't even consider such as an option.

 

[GHook93]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

Define 1% in quantative terms first. The top 1% is too vague. Also there are other taxes that need to be shrunk also, such as the capital gains tax and payroll tax!

 

[GHook93]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

I also have another tax I like. I will listen to GOP Presidential Candidate and self made billionaire Donald Trump. TAX CHINA!!! They are making a fortune off our backs and through stealing our manufacturing sector. Tax them!!! What repercussions are they going to take? Tax us back! PLEASE!!! The trade deficit is so high between us and China, that a counter tarriff would do little. Call in our debt. OK we say fuck you we don't have it! How are they going to make us pay it! Remember when France did it to Mexico? Yet America got the holiday Cinco De Mayo for it!

TAX CHINA!!!

 

[boedicca]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

Define 1% in quantative terms first. The top 1% is too vague. Also there are other taxes that need to be shrunk also, such as the capital gains tax and payroll tax!

The income break where the top 1% begins is approximately $380K. A decent income, but upper middle class, not rich.

 

[The Gadfly]

Oh you mean that the second amendment is pure BS where you guys always say you need your guns to defend yourself from your own govt?

an uprising to the normal people is not going to work, not paying their taxes, and refusing to be ordered around. That is your side that thinks guns right away.

Ah, so bleats the liberal sheep, when it talks "uprising", and finds its opposition unafraid of it. Just for the record, "uprising" is your word, and absent explanation to the contrary, I take that to mean "armed revolt". What; did you think you could fire on someone without being fired on in return? That is not going to happen. If you meant "passive resistance", you should have said, "passive resistance", in the first place. That won't work, either, but feel free to knock yourselves out trying. Like I told another of your species, you couldn't foment a real "uprising" in a two-bit, third world banana republic. The truth is, that you libbies can't even do your own stealing; you have to have the Nanny State hold your little hands, even for that. You sanctimoniously rail about "greed", only to have another post reveal how little you actually know about who pays what. Did the DNC give you those figures of yours, or did you just make them up out of your empty head? Tell you what; get back to me, when you can actually write a sentence with correct grammar and syntax. It's not my fault you didn't pay attention in class.

By the way, what you call "greed" is simply the desire to keep what one has earned through the lawful fruits of one's own labor. What the hell gives you the right to demand that I or anyone else share it with you and yours? Did I miss something? Did someone die and make you God for today? I ask, because I could have sworn that was you telling me and others where we are going in the hereafter. Am I a mean, greedy, heartless SOB, because I don't cower like a whipped cur before your feet, and beg you to take what I've earned? I suppose you want me to wipe your snotty, crybaby nose, while I'm at it? I think not; call your Nanny in Washington.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Taxes are too low?

Yes.

Even a good many conservatives around here are clamoring to start taxing the half of American households that pay NO federal income taxes?

They MUST believe taxes are too low, correct??

But, seriously, taxes are at historically low levels, lowest as a pct. of GDP since 1950. AND we now have a massive debt looming over us, and ongoing deficits adding to the debt.

The idea that tax increases shouldn't be part of the solution to this problem is irrational.

Uh. Dood. The reason taxes are low is because over 16% of the labor force is un or under employed. Such people don't pay much in taxes. We don't have an Under Taxed Problem. We have a LACK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH TO CREATE JOBS Problem.

Raising taxes will make it worse.

Wrong. The reason taxes are low is because they were substantially lowered by legislation, and especially because the child tax credit was doubled to $1000 per child in Bush's tax cuts.

That massive tax credit is the main reason so many lower income families are paying no federal income taxes.

As I said, it is GOP tax policy that has taken millions off the tax rolls entirely,

ironically, and now conservatives are complaining about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Great idea. As of April 1st, the U.S. will have the highest corporate tax rates in the world:

TaxProf Blog: Tax Foundation: On April 1, U.S. Is #1 (World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate)


Let's raise them further so we can make double digit unemployment a structural feature of the economy.

That's the rate, not the real amount paid.

So you would rather have high rates that force companies to lobby the politicians and regulators for tax credits and subsidies to offset the excessive taxes? Cuz that's what we get for having these high rates. Well, that, and more jobs going overseas...

So what? You lower the rates and eliminate loopholes, and think you'll get more tax money out of them??

 

[TheSeeker]

"How about this: Cut spending and Raise taxes 2-5% on the top 1% "


How 'bout getting a fucking CLUE?

There Aren

 

[NYcarbineer]

Taxes are too low?

Yes.

Even a good many conservatives around here are clamoring to start taxing the half of American households that pay NO federal income taxes?

They MUST believe taxes are too low, correct??

But, seriously, taxes are at historically low levels, lowest as a pct. of GDP since 1950. AND we now have a massive debt looming over us, and ongoing deficits adding to the debt.

The idea that tax increases shouldn't be part of the solution to this problem is irrational.

well, I have said before and will say again- the level of expectation via outlays by gov. ahead of pop. growth and inflation has created a DEPENDENCY, in other words don't take anything away now, because we need it.........now that you have given it to us.

I would pay more in taxes IF they cut, and I don't mean .5% of the budget either, I mean CUT, I would gladly pay 5% more in taxes if that were locked in to help get us out of this, BUT it will never happen, those who think like that side of the number line whine about Cowboy Poetry events.


Which tells me and others like me exactly what they are about- we have ramped up the spending and we are keeping it, BUT you can gladly get us out of this by paying more in taxes now that we have created the DEPENDENCY...no thx. screw that.

The ONLY bi-partisan action of any consequence that's been done lately was the massive budget busting tax cut passed in December.

A huge budget busting giveaway that only makes the fiscal situation worse, but makes the average American voter happy...

...THAT is the sum total of bi-partisan cooperation our 'leaders' are capable of.

If that doesn't tell you how hopeless the situation is, nothing will.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax increases are almost NEVER used to pay down debt. They are used to expand government spending.

And that is why we shouldn't even consider such as an option.

Bush openly proclaimed in 2001 that we needed tax cuts so we WOULDN'T pay down the debt...

...no, he wasn't quite clumsy enough to say it that blatantly, but that is exactly what he meant when he said that the surplus he was inheriting was a sign that the taxpayers were being overcharged.

 

[GHook93]

That way we dont slash programs to the bone that are needed to keep society going and the rich wont be hurt by an extreme tax increase. Then we can climb out of the deficit twice as fast.

Can we do two things at once? Or is any tax increase socialism?

Define 1% in quantative terms first. The top 1% is too vague. Also there are other taxes that need to be shrunk also, such as the capital gains tax and payroll tax!

The income break where the top 1% begins is approximately $380K. A decent income, but upper middle class, not rich.

380K would include many SUCCESSFUL small business owners and S-Corp Shareholders! Companies that hire and employ many Americans. Raising their taxes goes right to the company's bottom-line! I say it you want to raise income on the upper class. Then it starts at $1 mil! $1 mil most likely won't hit the small business owner, rather it will be executives of C-Corps.

 

[Polk]

Gramm-Rudmann. Had automatic cuts to keep the deficit down. It was the law of the land to have a balanced budget.

This is not accurate.

Gramm–Rudman–Hollings's fixed deficit targets were not effect at holding down the deficit (also, interesting you left out the name of the bill's Democratic sponsor). To the (minor) extent budget rules played a significant part in the surpluses of the late 90s, they come from PAYGO, which was introduced as part of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

The Act to which is being referred has always been called the "Gramm-Rudman Act. This indicates no slight to any member of a particular political party.
Grow a thicker skin.

O please. 14 of the first 20 results on Google for "Gramm-Rudman Act" come back with "Gramm-Rudman-Hollings".