Obama Lies: WSJ shows taxing the rich won't cover the bill

What MarcCommunist doesn't want you to see:
ED-AN418_1taxes_D_20110417172403.jpg

That graph puzzled me at first when I saw the bell shaped curve bold faced class warfare title, it contradicted my understanding that the rich paid the lion's share of revenue. Looking harder at just the numbers showed that most taxable income is from AGI's over $200k, and that's the highest of the top 5% of filers.

So even these data hand picked from somewhere in the IRS show that us rich are paying the bills around here.

And that's because they make much, much more than any other economic class, ala the record growth of the wealth gap. You are aware that the working class's wages have been basically frozen for over thirty years in Real Dollars don't you, while the wealthy's income has increased dramatically.
 
What MarcCommunist doesn't want you to see:
ED-AN418_1taxes_D_20110417172403.jpg

That graph puzzled me at first when I saw the bell shaped curve bold faced class warfare title, it contradicted my understanding that the rich paid the lion's share of revenue. Looking harder at just the numbers showed that most taxable income is from AGI's over $200k, and that's the highest of the top 5% of filers.

So even these data hand picked from somewhere in the IRS show that us rich are paying the bills around here.

And that's because they make much, much more than any other economic class, ala the record growth of the wealth gap. You are aware that the working class's wages have been basically frozen for over thirty years in Real Dollars don't you, while the wealthy's income has increased dramatically.

If we follow BO's plan to become one socialized new world order the working class's wages will not just be "frozen" but will melt away into almost nothing....
 
Barack Obama told the nation last Wednesday that “improvements” in Medicare and hiking taxes on the wealthy would stabilize government spending and bring deficit spending to what can charitably be described as a dull roar. The Wall Street Journal does some fact checking on these claims and finds them entirely false. Even if the “rich” gets defined down to the top 10% of filers — whose average annual household income is $114,000 — the level of revenue from even a 100% tax would still not close the budget gap:

WSJ shows taxing the rich won’t cover the bill « Hot Air

hence why I keep repeating the same mantra over and over.

We need to raise taxes on EVERYONE, including from the top 1% that pay 40% of all income taxes to the bottom 40% who currently pay zero federal income tax and DRASTICALLY cut spending across ALL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS and even eliminate some agencies/programs.

When I say all I mean it, from planned parenthood to military spending.

If we dont make drastic cuts and increase revenues we are going to fail in the next few years as a nation.

Raising taxes in this economy would NOT fix the problem.

It would only cause a heavier burden on an already burdened economy, resulting in less jobs. Less jobs mean LESS REVENUE.

The increase in taxes does not automatically mean more revenue coming into the government. Not unless there is an economy to support it, and there IS NOT.

Further, there is no guarrantee that raising taxes would result in the government following through with spending cuts.

In 1990 George H. Bush broke his promise and raised taxes to fix the deficit. But Democrats simply increased spending and not a dime went to the deficit.

The ONLY solution is SPENDING CUTS. You have to have them FIRST. Otherwise, the typical Washington politician will simply promise spending cuts as they raise taxes AND NEVER FOLLOW THROUGH.

No way am I falling for that BS.
 
Barack Obama told the nation last Wednesday that “improvements” in Medicare and hiking taxes on the wealthy would stabilize government spending and bring deficit spending to what can charitably be described as a dull roar. The Wall Street Journal does some fact checking on these claims and finds them entirely false. Even if the “rich” gets defined down to the top 10% of filers — whose average annual household income is $114,000 — the level of revenue from even a 100% tax would still not close the budget gap:

WSJ shows taxing the rich won’t cover the bill « Hot Air

hence why I keep repeating the same mantra over and over.

We need to raise taxes on EVERYONE, including from the top 1% that pay 40% of all income taxes to the bottom 40% who currently pay zero federal income tax and DRASTICALLY cut spending across ALL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS and even eliminate some agencies/programs.

When I say all I mean it, from planned parenthood to military spending.

If we dont make drastic cuts and increase revenues we are going to fail in the next few years as a nation.

Raising taxes in this economy would NOT fix the problem.

It would only cause a heavier burden on an already burdened economy, resulting in less jobs. Less jobs mean LESS REVENUE.

The increase in taxes does not automatically mean more revenue coming into the government. Not unless there is an economy to support it, and there IS NOT.

Further, there is no guarrantee that raising taxes would result in the government following through with spending cuts.

In 1990 George H. Bush broke his promise and raised taxes to fix the deficit. But Democrats simply increased spending and not a dime went to the deficit.

The ONLY solution is SPENDING CUTS. You have to have them FIRST. Otherwise, the typical Washington politician will simply promise spending cuts as they raise taxes AND NEVER FOLLOW THROUGH.

No way am I falling for that BS.

I think if you understood what i'm thinking you would be more supportive. Let me try to explain it.

1) as you said we need to cut spending first, my idea was to cut it to a level that eliminates our current budget defecit
2) once that is done we raise the taxes by X% on everyone like I stated. The revenues from these tax hikes will only be allowed to be used, through legistlation, to pay down the national debt. Once the debt is gone the taxes must be legislated to go away too.


I know i know getting the dems/reps to actually agree to something like this is close to impossible but its the best solution in my opinion.



Hey look everyone, teapartiers aren't all cookie cutter....2 of us here have different opinons on this ;).
 
Why don't they post what Obama actually said?

Because anything Obama says has an expiration date. Like his claiming he would never do signing statements. Only he just did one.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

or hire lobbyists.............

or be a unifier and not a divider.............

or.............................................................................
 
Why is it that we paid of our debt after WWII and during the Clinton years by raising taxes?

We did not "pay off our debt" during the Clinton years by raising taxes.

Quite the opposite. Despite all the lies coming from the left side of the aisle, the fact was, the CBO predicted deficits clear to 2010 after Clinton raised taxes in 1993. That is what the CBO predicted at the time (I know because I remember)

That didn't change UNTIL the Republican Revolution in 1994 when Republicans won the House and Senate.

They FORCED Clinton to sign some changes (or be embarrassed by an override vote).

One of these was a CUT IN CAPITAL GAIN TAXES and the other was WELFARE REFORM.

And if you don't think those things turned the economy around, ask yourself why Clinton RAN ON THOSE SUCCESSES in 1996? He did, even though it was the Republicans that forced him to do it!

But MOST IMPORTANTLY was the cut in capital gains. THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT GEORGE H. BUSH TOLD THOSE IDIOT DEMOCRATS in 1991 would fix the Recession, but the IDIOT DEMOCRATS IN THE CONGRESS would not go along with it.

That, I remember as well.

But Bush 41 turned out to be right. The revenue flooded into the federal government as a result of the capital gains cut, because it freed up money, the wealthy were no longer hiding to keep from paying capital gains.

But I have to point out that a LOT of that so called "balancing" of the deficit in the 1990s WAS AN ACCOUNTING TRICK.

One of the things the Clinton admin did was LEAVE SOCIAL SECURITY SPENDING out of the totals. If you did that NOW you could probably show a much lower deficit, or probably paid off debt.

It was an accounting trick. Plain and simple.
 
What MarcCommunist doesn't want you to see:
ED-AN418_1taxes_D_20110417172403.jpg

That graph puzzled me at first when I saw the bell shaped curve bold faced class warfare title, it contradicted my understanding that the rich paid the lion's share of revenue. Looking harder at just the numbers showed that most taxable income is from AGI's over $200k, and that's the highest of the top 5% of filers.

So even these data hand picked from somewhere in the IRS show that us rich are paying the bills around here.

And that's because they make much, much more than any other economic class, ala the record growth of the wealth gap. You are aware that the working class's wages have been basically frozen for over thirty years in Real Dollars don't you, while the wealthy's income has increased dramatically.

Even if that's true, what does that mean?

If I make $40,000 and my income has not gone up in say 10 years, but my neighbor makes $80,000 and their income has gone up every year, does that mean my neighbor owes me some money?

Where does this viewpoint come into being that somehow those that earn money owe it to others who don't?

:eusa_eh:
 
hence why I keep repeating the same mantra over and over.

We need to raise taxes on EVERYONE, including from the top 1% that pay 40% of all income taxes to the bottom 40% who currently pay zero federal income tax and DRASTICALLY cut spending across ALL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS and even eliminate some agencies/programs.

When I say all I mean it, from planned parenthood to military spending.

If we dont make drastic cuts and increase revenues we are going to fail in the next few years as a nation.

Raising taxes in this economy would NOT fix the problem.

It would only cause a heavier burden on an already burdened economy, resulting in less jobs. Less jobs mean LESS REVENUE.

The increase in taxes does not automatically mean more revenue coming into the government. Not unless there is an economy to support it, and there IS NOT.

Further, there is no guarrantee that raising taxes would result in the government following through with spending cuts.

In 1990 George H. Bush broke his promise and raised taxes to fix the deficit. But Democrats simply increased spending and not a dime went to the deficit.

The ONLY solution is SPENDING CUTS. You have to have them FIRST. Otherwise, the typical Washington politician will simply promise spending cuts as they raise taxes AND NEVER FOLLOW THROUGH.

No way am I falling for that BS.

I think if you understood what i'm thinking you would be more supportive. Let me try to explain it.

1) as you said we need to cut spending first, my idea was to cut it to a level that eliminates our current budget defecit
2) once that is done we raise the taxes by X% on everyone like I stated. The revenues from these tax hikes will only be allowed to be used, through legistlation, to pay down the national debt. Once the debt is gone the taxes must be legislated to go away too.


I know i know getting the dems/reps to actually agree to something like this is close to impossible but its the best solution in my opinion.



Hey look everyone, teapartiers aren't all cookie cutter....2 of us here have different opinons on this ;).


Look that's NUTS!

A) Raising taxes doesn't mean more revenue. Cutting capital gains in the 90s proved that! They cut a tax and it meant MORE revenue to the government.

Read "Do as I say not as I do" and look at the way rich liberals like John Kerry, all for higher taxes, avoid paying those taxes themselves.

Higher taxes just means rich people get more creative in avoiding paying them, WHILE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE CLASS LIKE YOU AND ME, shoulder the greatest burden of it.

B) Raising taxes takes money out of the economy, not only by taking money directly out, but causing the rich not to spend their money but put it into tax shelters.

Either way it causes jobs to go away, and big unemployment. Higher Unemployment means LESS REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT, because there are LESS JOBS.

Either way you put it, higher taxes IS A BAD IDEA! Higher taxes does not automatically mean higher revenues to the government.
 
Can't just tax the rich. Sorry. That's a fairy tale. Gonna have to cut spending and raise taxes on the nonrich. It's inttectually dishonest to say all we have to do is tax the rich.
 
TeaPartyspamarai

Cutting capital gains taxes is not comparable to cutting income taxes. There is zero empirical evidence in the US that raising income tax rates from these levels does not increase revenues. In fact the empirical evidence suggests the exact opposite. That is as intellectually dishonest as saying all we have to do is raise taxes on the rich. Raising taxes from these levels however would probably lead to a deadweight loss and somewhat slower growth, though less so when raising taxes solely on the rich.
 
So, I guess now we should just ignore it and not start to pay it off. :cuckoo:

....only if we can pay it off on the backs of those dirty fucking unwealthy scrubs that seem to think having a microwave is no longer an indication of wealth like it was in 1980.
 
Can't just tax the rich. Sorry. That's a fairy tale. Gonna have to cut spending and raise taxes on the nonrich. It's inttectually dishonest to say all we have to do is tax the rich.

thats why i said everyone from $1.00 to the very top needs a flat percentage of a tax burden added.

If we tax the top 1% at 100% it wont cover our defecit
If we tax the top 10% at 100% it will cover our defecit but not our unfunded liabilities.



Teapartysamaruai, we can do very very small tax increases without hurting revenues but they have to be small and uniform and not on one class of people only.
 
That graph puzzled me at first when I saw the bell shaped curve bold faced class warfare title, it contradicted my understanding that the rich paid the lion's share of revenue. Looking harder at just the numbers showed that most taxable income is from AGI's over $200k, and that's the highest of the top 5% of filers.

So even these data hand picked from somewhere in the IRS show that us rich are paying the bills around here.

And that's because they make much, much more than any other economic class, ala the record growth of the wealth gap. You are aware that the working class's wages have been basically frozen for over thirty years in Real Dollars don't you, while the wealthy's income has increased dramatically.

Even if that's true, what does that mean?

If I make $40,000 and my income has not gone up in say 10 years, but my neighbor makes $80,000 and their income has gone up every year, does that mean my neighbor owes me some money?

Where does this viewpoint come into being that somehow those that earn money owe it to others who don't?

:eusa_eh:

Oh brother.
We are looking at a taxes paid by income. I simply stated that A, the wealthy pay the most taxes because they make the most money and also,,they have had income growth. And B, and this would be the opposite of the working class as FACTS bear out.
 
You are aware that the working class's wages have been basically frozen for over thirty years in Real Dollars don't you...

We're probably together on the fact that most of the people say that have 'just heard it somewhere'. If you're game we can look up the facts together; getting out actual payment records is easy enough but the hard part is agreeing on who's the 'working' class and who isn't along with which record set is honest/transparent and which isn't.

In the meantime, fwiw here's what the Census and the BEA say about average household income:
hshldinc1104.gif


--and here's how the BLS compares consumer prices and total employee compenstion:

realcomp1104.gif
 
You are aware that the working class's wages have been basically frozen for over thirty years in Real Dollars don't you...

We're probably together on the fact that most of the people say that have 'just heard it somewhere'. If you're game we can look up the facts together; getting out actual payment records is easy enough but the hard part is agreeing on who's the 'working' class and who isn't along with which record set is honest/transparent and which isn't.

In the meantime, fwiw here's what the Census and the BEA say about average household income:
hshldinc1104.gif


--and here's how the BLS compares consumer prices and total employee compenstion:

realcomp1104.gif

Well here are some numbers in Real Dollars (1982 constant dollars) via the Department of Labor.

REAL WAGES
1964-2004
Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars)
For all private nonfarm workers
Year Real $ Change
1964 302.52
1965 310.46 2.62%
1966 312.83 0.76%
1967 311.30 -0.49%
1968 315.37 1.31%
1969 316.93 0.49%
1970 312.94 -1.26%
1971 318.05 1.63%
1972 331.59 4.26%
1973 331.39 -0.06%
1974 314.94 -4.96%
1975 305.16 -3.11%
1976 309.61 1.46%
1977 310.99 0.45%
1978 310.41 -0.19%
1979 298.87 -3.72%
1980 281.27 -5.89%
1981 277.35 -1.39%
1982 272.74 -1.66%
1983 277.50 1.75%
1984 279.22 0.62%
1985 276.23 -1.07%
1986 276.11 -0.04%
1987 272.88 -1.17%
1988 270.32 -0.94%
1989 267.27 -1.13%
1990 262.43 -1.81%
1991 258.34 -1.56%
1992 257.95 -0.15%
1993 258.12 0.07%
1994 259.97 0.72%
1995 258.43 -0.59%
1996 259.58 0.44%
1997 265.22 2.17%
1998 271.87 2.51%
1999 274.64 1.02%
2000 275.62 0.36%
2001 275.38 -0.09%
2002 278.91 1.28%
2003 279.94 0.37%
2004 277.57 -0.84%



Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+(1964-2004)

Looking at what you posted, it looks to me that constant Real Dollars weren't figured into the equation.
 

Thanks for comparing notes with me.

Your link just got me "Oops! Seems there has been a problem. Page cannot be found" but it's not a bls link anyway. For me websites that tell me what the BLS says aren't as good as just my going to the BLS and seeing for myself what the BLS says. The BLS dataset (at Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) had "Constant (1982-84) Median wkly earnings, Emp FT, Wage & sal wrkrs - LEU0252881600", and here's a screen shot of what I saw (at http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet):

wageshot.gif


It's interesting how real wages have inceased while total real compensation increased more and total real income went up even more than that.

Looking at what you posted, it looks to me that constant Real Dollars weren't figured into the equation.


In the first graph the "2008$" means constant (real) dollars adjusted to prices in the year 2008. In the second graph we see how nominal compensation increased more than the CPI.
 
...Where does this viewpoint come into being that somehow those that earn money owe it to others who don't?

Bingo!

We've had to put up with a lot of whining class warfare complaining lately about income inequality, and the fact is (link avail upon request) that the so-called 'inequality of income' disappears by adjusting for education, hours worked, and government assistance.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top