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

[auditor0007]

How 'bout we cut spending back to 1990 levels and leave the tax structure as is?

But that won't take care of the deficit. That would just cut spending and leave the deficit where it is now.

The deficit is brought about by too much spending.

The debt is where it is and cannot ever really be repaid.

The only way to ever reduce the debt is to run with a balanced budget year after year, thereby not increasing the debt. As the economy grows, the deficit will become a much smaller percentage of GDP. Eventually the debt becomes minimal. Paying down the debt is out of the question and not feasible.

 

[Chris]

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?

This is what Clinton did, and it worked beautifully.

Then George the Lesser came along and ruined America.

Now we have to take it back.

 

[God Guns Beer]

How about we dont raise taxes on the people who pay us at all? In fact, I think we should lower the taxes of those people even more. Why should they carry so much of the tax burden while so many deadbeats in this country pay nothing at all?
What a lot of people in this country dont seem to get is that the successful know how to keep their money and pass any cost down. The more money you make in this country, the more people you have below you to pass costs like higher taxes down to. I will give you an example. I am a business owner and employer, if the government raises my taxes, its really not going to come out of my pocket. I have a choice, I can either pass the cost on to my clients through higher costs, or I can pass the cost of higher taxes on to my employees. The feild my business is in is very competitive, so personally I wouldnt pass the cost on to my clients. I would however pass the cost down to my employees. They would simply get smaller paychecks. Although I am not in the top 1%, my clients are. If you raise their taxes, again, they would more than likely pass the cost down to my business. Then guess what? I would in turn pass that cost down to my employees. Now...which employees of mine would get the majority of the cuts? The lowest paid people at the bottom, of course. Those are the less important employees...the more expendable employees....the easiely replacable employees. Unlike my higher paid higher skilled employees, you dont have to do as much to keep those people happy.
So think about that...when you raise taxes on the top %, who is really paying for it?

 

[Chris]

80% of the wage increases in the last 30 years were sucked up by the wealthy, and some people say, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

Unbelievable.

 

[God Guns Beer]

80% of the wage increases in the last 30 years were sucked up by the wealthy, and some people say, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

Unbelievable.

If you havent got any wage increases in the last 30 years, I would say thats your fault, and not the wealthy. Ive now been working for exactly 30 years, my wages go up every year. And i sure as hell make a lot more today than I did 30 years ago.

I think the problem today with a lot of people is they think they are owed higher wages without earning higher wages. The vast majority of everyone in this country has the ability to CHOOSE to make their wages go up. There are always ways to earn more money.
But doing the same thing over and over and expecting your wages to go up is just ignorance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can you imagine how much they'd flip out if Obama proposed returning the top rate to where it was under Reagan?

The other day someone claimed people won't innovate and invest and try to invent new things if the tax rate on the rich is too high, because supposedly the rich do all the innovation. I pointed out that the top rate was 70% when Bill Gates and Paul Allen started Microsoft.

That 70% rate applied only to income which would be above $818K in today's dollars. But it's moot. Founders of companies own Founders Shares, which are taxed at long term capital gains rates (currently 15%). Back in the 70s it was a higher rate with a 50% exclusion from cap gains taxes, resulting in a tad above 15%.

Whatever. Bottom line is it's bullshit to claim that high marginal tax rates on the top incomes stifle innovation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh, yes...ME.

I am not motivated by money, and have INTENTIONALLY reduced my sales this year as a giant FUCK YOU to the NYS assembly, particular trash like sheldon silver, for being a scumbag sleazy piece of shit whose sole purpose in life is to funnel my money to public employee unions and illegal aliens/poor.

Ok, other than Mr. Vow of Poverty here,

anyone else?

Good story btw.

It's not a vow of poverty. It's a vow of principles and self-preservation. Everyone has a tipping point where the marginal dollar earned is not worth the cost to one's life. The more the government takes, the more people will decide that the extra work is not worth handing over such a large chunk to the government to waste.

But I doubt you'll ever be in a position to make such a choice.

The question was, have you ever known anyone who didn't want to earn more money because it would be taxed at 39% instead of 36%?

 

[ba1614]

There's waaaay too much waste to get rid of before anyone should pay more taxes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Total income of those making over 250k/yr is <$537B
Rasing taxes 3.5%, assuming it all goes to revenue, nets <$19B
PINC-11 Table of Contents

Unless you -meaningfully- cut spending, this will have almost no effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How 'bout we cut spending back to 1990 levels and leave the tax structure as is?

You mean to astronomical Reagan era spending?

Yes... where federal outlays were about 1/3 what they are now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The question was, have you ever known anyone who didn't want to earn more money because it would be taxed at 39% instead of 36%?

You don't massage your income/deductions in relation to your tax bracket? I certainly do.
I guess you don't make enough for it to matter.

 

[Rozman]

Why do you guys keep saying "we"? I'm talking about raising the taxes on the top 1% so dont take it personal. You arent affected.

Increasing the power and scope of the federal government decreases us all.

It bothers me greatly that we have an administration that is hell bent on spending us into oblivion and to make things better we need to take more from the citizens....enough is enough.Government Dems and Republicans need to live within our means.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How 'bout we cut spending back to 1990 levels and leave the tax structure as is?

But that won't take care of the deficit. That would just cut spending and leave the deficit where it is now.

Cutting spending wouldn't change the deficit? Oh my God, you're an imbecile.

Deficit - an excess of expenditure over revenue.

In other words, the deficit is the amount we're spending over what we're taking in. Tell us again how cutting spending "won't take care of" the deficit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm interested if anyone is willing to raise taxes by any amount to get us out of this hole. What say you?

And I say unto you all again......If you Libs feel that we are not taxed enough please feel free to give more of YOUR money to the government and keep YOUR hands out of everyone else's pockets....

Why do you guys keep saying "we"? I'm talking about raising the taxes on the top 1% so dont take it personal. You arent affected.

Maybe they aren't all greedy, envious little freaks who get their jollies thinking about sticking to other people, and instead are mature adults who understand that WE, the people of this nation, are in this together and shouldn't fall for the Balkanizing tactics of the Left.

Just a guess off the top of my head.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do you guys keep saying "we"? I'm talking about raising the taxes on the top 1% so dont take it personal. You arent affected.

One, we have NO guarantee you won't extend it to us, too; you party's track record says you will.

Two, those people are paying their share, while your party's favored constituencies pay NOTHING; that's right, zip, zilch, nada, not one red cent!

I tell you what I want, since you DIDN'T ask: I want every American to pay something. I want every American to write 5 checks a year to the United States Treasury, just like I have to. To hell with this "hide it through withholding" garbage, where you can fool people into thinking government is "giving" them something, when it refunds their own money to them. I want them to write those checks, so they know exactly what government is taking from them. I don't care, if it's only fifty bucks a year; I want all to pay, and all to know what exactly they are paying. You want "fairness"? Well, that's as totally fair as it gets, for everyone from the working poor to the mega rich, and if you liberal democrats want to HAVE equality, instead of just prattle about it, that's the way to do it! Now put up, or shut up!

Everyone pays taxes. And I want a world where I make the rules as well, unfortunatly I know that wont happen and try to look for answers within reality. That world that you describe will never, has never and will never be proposed or accomplished by any lawmaker, so it'a kinda easy to be pro...that

Everyone pays taxes to the federal government? Really? Who told you that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Except that Reagan and Bush's tax cuts both reduced revenue.

According to whom?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Also misleading. They "don't pay income tax", as long as you don't count the payroll tax as an income tax.

Let me help you out; FICA is NOT "federal income tax". That's supposed to be an insurance and pension system, not funding for running the government (though politicians raid the "trust fund " regularly. All I'm asking is that EVERY American pay at least $50 in federal income tax annually, and that EVERY American pay federal income tax quarterly, so they can see what they're actually paying, without gimmicks to hide it from them. I'll bet that would give a lot of people a wake up call on the matter of taxation; as it is, a lot of people are paying more than they think they are, while they think their politicians are sticking someone else with the bill. I'm just asking for a little "truth in taxation" here.

"FICA" is not the only withholding tax taken out of paychecks. Federal Income Tax is taken out as well.

Of course, if you don't HAVE a paycheck, you don't pay ANY income tax. And if you're below a certain income level, everything that's taken out of your paycheck is given back to you, and then some.

 

[Chris]

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?

This is what Bill Clinton did, and it worked.

 

[Chris]

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.

Except that Reagan and Bush's tax cuts both reduced revenue.

According to whom?

According to Reagan's own budget director.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except that Reagan and Bush's tax cuts both reduced revenue.

According to whom?

According to Reagan's own budget director.
Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

This is, of course, impossible.
But don't let the truth get in the way of a good partisan slur.