Taxing the rich more won't cut the deficit or debt

[Conservative]

an excellent read...

Obama

An economic strategy founded on raising taxes on the rich is based on two false premises. The first is that tax increases on the rich are a solution to current budget deficits. The second is the argument often put forward that there is “no evidence” that tax increases on the rich hurt the economy.

According to the New York Times, the president’s plan to abolish the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 is expected to bring in merely $0.7 trillion over the next decade, or about 0.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product per year. As a comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit over the same period is going to be $13 trillion, more than 6 percent of GDP per year.

The rich in America obviously have lots of money, but there are simply not enough of them to fund the president´s preferred level of spending. For all the attention it has received, President Obama’s “taxing the rich” policy can best be described as symbolic in nature, a rounding error compared to the deficits in the president’s budget. Obama centers his speeches around tax hikes on the rich to lead voters into believing that hard choices on the economy can be avoided simply by taxing the rich at a higher rate.

and morons like Dickless, the Holocaust Denier bought it hook, line and sinker.

There exists robust empirical evidence that taxes impede economic activity. In conventional economics, only the magnitude of the negative impact of taxes on economic output is debated, not the existence of such an effect.

Instead of picking one historic event that happens to fit your preferred theory, a more reasonable approach is to investigate all historical periods where taxes increased or decreased. This has been done by former Obama advisor Christina Romer and her husband David Romer. They also take into account the causes of tax increases.1 They find that tax increases tend to reduce economic growth, stating that “tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output,” as “an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost three percent.” Similar results have been obtained by Harvard economist Alberto Alesina using a different methodology.

 

[Sallow]

More revenue will have an impact to both the deficit and the debt.

When you cut the revenue to the government, with no new revenue streams and/or expenditure cuts, both the deficit and debt will grow.

Both BushII and Reagan proved that.

 

[Conservative]

More revenue will have an impact to both the deficit and the debt.

When you cut the revenue to the government, with no new revenue streams and/or expenditure cuts, both the deficit and debt will grow.

Both BushII and Reagan proved that.

way to completely ignore the OP.

 

[Lovebears65]

More revenue will have an impact to both the deficit and the debt.

When you cut the revenue to the government, with no new revenue streams and/or expenditure cuts, both the deficit and debt will grow.

Both BushII and Reagan proved that.

more revenue will give Obama more money to give the entitlement generation more entitlements.He will not pay one dime from the deficit

 

[Mr. Shaman]

an excellent read...

Obama

An economic strategy founded on raising taxes on the rich is based on two false premises. The first is that tax increases on the rich are a solution to current budget deficits. The second is the argument often put forward that there is “no evidence” that tax increases on the rich hurt the economy.

"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating."
- Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)

"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."
- Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)

"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."
- Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)

"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."
- Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)

"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."
- Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)

$ . $ . $ . $​

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

When St. Bill Came To Town!!!​

​

 

[Seawytch]

Taxes are at historic lows. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at all time lows. Whatever we're doing, ain't working.

How does the Romney/Ryan plan reduce the deficit? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

According to the New York Times, the president’s plan to abolish the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 is expected to bring in merely $0.7 trillion over the next decade, or about 0.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product per year. As a comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit over the same period is going to be $13 trillion, more than 6 percent of GDP per year.

Don't get too excited.

ALLOWING ALL Bush tax-cuts to die-on-the-vine will pretty-much accomplish the same....just like the last time.....​

August 5, 1996

Let 'Em ALL DIE, Folks!!

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Liberals are never concerned with facts and results.............Only appeareances

This country doesnt have a revenue problem, only an out of control, wasteful spending problem........

 

[Wry Catcher]

More revenue will have an impact to both the deficit and the debt.

When you cut the revenue to the government, with no new revenue streams and/or expenditure cuts, both the deficit and debt will grow.

Both BushII and Reagan proved that.

way to completely ignore the OP.

I don't think so. Sallow offers historical evidence to support his claim. Your post predicates increased spending something the Obama administration has curtailed. Check the facts, under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II spending increased; under Carter, Clinton and now Obama spending has decreased.

Source: The Wall Street Journal, link:

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

 

[DiamondDave]

Taxes are at historic lows. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at all time lows. Whatever we're doing, ain't working.

How does the Romney/Ryan plan reduce the deficit? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

Uhhh.. No.. they are not...

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Spending is at historic highs and it is growing exponentially

Therein lies your problem

 

[Wacky Quacky]

More revenue will have an impact to both the deficit and the debt.

When you cut the revenue to the government, with no new revenue streams and/or expenditure cuts, both the deficit and debt will grow.

Both BushII and Reagan proved that.

You can give the government all the new revenue they want, they'll just blow it like they do the cash they already get. Your argument of needing more revenue to help the deficit only holds true if you trust the government to be financially competent.

Do you trust the government to pay down the deficit with extra revenue?

 

[Ariux]

I have a solution to the debt problem:

Index the tax rate of the rich to the deficit. No, it won't raise enough money to close the deficit, but given that the rich control the purse strings of the government, it'll be strong incentive for them to stop the run away spending.

 

[eflatminor]

How does the Romney/Ryan plan reduce the deficit? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

Then perhaps you're a fan, as I am, of the Mack Penny plan, which will CERTAINLY reduce the deficit so that we may begin to contemplate attacking our actual debt.

Press Releases - Press Office - Congressman Connie Mack

 

[Katzndogz]

The liberal tax the rich scheme to reduce the deficit falls apart because the rich don't have nearly enough money to satisfy the enormous debt obama has run up. After having taxed away the wealth of the rich, liberals assume that the rich will continue generating wealth to take away. That's where their plan falls apart how how destitute countries came to be destitute.

 

[Conservative]

Taxes are at historic lows. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at all time lows. Whatever we're doing, ain't working.

How does the Romney/Ryan plan reduce the deficit? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

I have a link that says differently.

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts
In 2001, federal spending as a % of GDP was 18.11
In 2004, federal spending as a % of GDP was 19.34
In 2008, federal spending as a % of GDP was 20.76
In 2009, federal spending as a % of GDP was 25.24
In 2010, federal spending as a % of GDP was 23.79
In 2011, federal spending as a % of GDP was 23.87
In 2012, federal spending as a % of GDP was 24.33

Historic low under Obama???

 

[DiamondDave]

Taxes are at historic lows. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at all time lows. Whatever we're doing, ain't working.

How does the Romney/Ryan plan reduce the deficit? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

I have a link that says differently.

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts
In 2001, federal spending as a % of GDP was 18.11
In 2004, federal spending as a % of GDP was 19.34
In 2008, federal spending as a % of GDP was 20.76
In 2009, federal spending as a % of GDP was 25.24
In 2010, federal spending as a % of GDP was 23.79
In 2011, federal spending as a % of GDP was 23.87
In 2012, federal spending as a % of GDP was 24.33

Historic low under Obama???

C'mon Con.. don't let facts get in the way.. they myths they love to spew about are SO much more fun for them and support their assertions better

 

[eflatminor]

Taxes are at historic lows. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at all time lows. Whatever we're doing, ain't working.

How does the Romney/Ryan plan reduce the deficit? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

I have a link that says differently.

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts
In 2001, federal spending as a % of GDP was 18.11
In 2004, federal spending as a % of GDP was 19.34
In 2008, federal spending as a % of GDP was 20.76
In 2009, federal spending as a % of GDP was 25.24
In 2010, federal spending as a % of GDP was 23.79
In 2011, federal spending as a % of GDP was 23.87
In 2012, federal spending as a % of GDP was 24.33

Historic low under Obama???

You must stop with the logic and reason. It'll make their heads explode.

 

[MuadDib]

Increasing taxes on the wealthy won't solve a damned thing. Back when the tax rate on the wealthy was 90%, all it accomplished was to discourage them from making any more money. When they hit that 90% rate, they just stopped working for the rest of the year.

The best solution is the Flat Tax or Fair Tax.

 

[Conservative]

Taxes are at historic lows. Spending as a percentage of GDP is at all time lows. Whatever we're doing, ain't working.

How does the Romney/Ryan plan reduce the deficit? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

I have a link that says differently.

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts
In 2001, federal spending as a % of GDP was 18.11
In 2004, federal spending as a % of GDP was 19.34
In 2008, federal spending as a % of GDP was 20.76
In 2009, federal spending as a % of GDP was 25.24
In 2010, federal spending as a % of GDP was 23.79
In 2011, federal spending as a % of GDP was 23.87
In 2012, federal spending as a % of GDP was 24.33

Historic low under Obama???

You must stop with the logic and reason. It'll make their heads explode.

You say that like it's a bad thing