Individual income tax payments up $233 billion over the last two years- 26%

[oldfart]

Does this mean we can have a serious discussion about cuts now?

always....but the smoke screen for raising rates on the 'rich' as anything but red meat is not serious.

let me ask a question; what amount of revenue is obama looking for? he NOW says 1.6 trillion on 10 years...so, 160 Bn a year, thats how much over what he asked last year? Double, last year during the late summer they were dealing on a cut to the deficit of $4 trillion over 10 years, and a revenue plan revenue for $800 billion.......now, we are doubling that? Is that serious?

all you seem to hear of is the revenue needed from the evil rich rate increase, what about revenues from the Obama Care tax increases?

OK the federal budget is not the easiest thing in the world to read in the bathtub. Obama's proposal to cut the deficit by $4 trillion over ten years, COMPARED TO THE BASELINE was for $800 billion of revenue increases and about $2.50 dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of revenue increase, which by my math is about two trillion if spending cuts. That's short a trillion, some adjustmets are necessary to meet the goal. If we raise the revenue goal to $1.6 trillion, and keep the spending cuts the same we are at $3.6 trillion.

 

[Trajan]

Does this mean we can have a serious discussion about cuts now?

always....but the smoke screen for raising rates on the 'rich' as anything but red meat is not serious.

let me ask a question; what amount of revenue is obama looking for? he NOW says 1.6 trillion on 10 years...so, 160 Bn a year, thats how much over what he asked last year? Double, last year during the late summer they were dealing on a cut to the deficit of $4 trillion over 10 years, and a revenue plan revenue for $800 billion.......now, we are doubling that? Is that serious?

all you seem to hear of is the revenue needed from the evil rich rate increase, what about revenues from the Obama Care tax increases?

OK the federal budget is not the easiest thing in the world to read in the bathtub. Obama's proposal to cut the deficit by $4 trillion over ten years, COMPARED TO THE BASELINE was for $800 billion of revenue increases and about $2.50 dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of revenue increase, which by my math is about two trillion if spending cuts. That's short a trillion, some adjustmets are necessary to meet the goal. If we raise the revenue goal to $1.6 trillion, and keep the spending cuts the same we are at $3.6 trillion.

thats great, but doesn't address the issue as to where it going to come from......if you want to take the incremental approach, $80 Bn for the 'tax cuts on the rich' is fine as a starting point, but thats just a rate increase, money flees were taxes appear, and- we all know where the real money is, and it aint in the top 2% regards how we accrue revenue its in the middle class.

if we are going to grow the fed revenue slice of the gdp pie, the slice we take has to be larger, not necessarily by %, but by actual dollars, in round numbers- 18 % of 125 is better than 19% of 100....closing loopholes, deductions and a MODEST increase in taxes, when we get back above 3% gdp is I think the best way to go, obama knows this thats why he signed off on the bush cuts again in 2010, we are below the gdp growth in the 3 quarters running up to the same time now, December, than they were then.

 

[william the wie]

thats great, but doesn't address the issue as to where it going to come from......if you want to take the incremental approach, $80 Bn for the 'tax cuts on the rich' is fine as a starting point, but thats just a rate increase, money flees were taxes appear, and- we all know where the real money is, and it aint in the top 2% regards how we accrue revenue its in the middle class.

if we are going to grow the fed revenue slice of the gdp pie, the slice we take has to be larger, not necessarily by %, but by actual dollars, in round numbers- 18 % of 125 is better than 19% of 100....closing loopholes, deductions and a MODEST increase in taxes, when we get back above 3% gdp is I think the best way to go, obama knows this thats why he signed off on the bush cuts again in 2010, we are below the gdp growth in the 3 quarters running up to the same time now, December, than they were then.

Trajan the killer argument is the growth in LLCs and their declining costs relative to income. To take an extreme example Bezos as head of Amazon makes 80,000 a year. Gates before he went philanthropic purportefly made even less. Between perks like multi-million dollar homes (for key man security) and similar dodges the really rich have really low taxable incomes.

For another example no movie since at least the 1930s has produced a net income and all of those production companies listed in the titles exist to avoid taxable income and often by staggering amounts. The children of Fess Parker, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Sam Walton are or were prior to decease mindboggling rich and their heirs as well but I would be amazed if their taxable income were $200,000/year.

Income tax does not affect the wealthy or even most of the well to do.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

thats great, but doesn't address the issue as to where it going to come from......if you want to take the incremental approach, $80 Bn for the 'tax cuts on the rich' is fine as a starting point, but thats just a rate increase, money flees were taxes appear, and- we all know where the real money is, and it aint in the top 2% regards how we accrue revenue its in the middle class.

if we are going to grow the fed revenue slice of the gdp pie, the slice we take has to be larger, not necessarily by %, but by actual dollars, in round numbers- 18 % of 125 is better than 19% of 100....closing loopholes, deductions and a MODEST increase in taxes, when we get back above 3% gdp is I think the best way to go, obama knows this thats why he signed off on the bush cuts again in 2010, we are below the gdp growth in the 3 quarters running up to the same time now, December, than they were then.

Trajan the killer argument is the growth in LLCs and their declining costs relative to income. To take an extreme example Bezos as head of Amazon makes 80,000 a year. Gates before he went philanthropic purportefly made even less. Between perks like multi-million dollar homes (for key man security) and similar dodges the really rich have really low taxable incomes.

For another example no movie since at least the 1930s has produced a net income and all of those production companies listed in the titles exist to avoid taxable income and often by staggering amounts. The children of Fess Parker, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Sam Walton are or were prior to decease mindboggling rich and their heirs as well but I would be amazed if their taxable income were $200,000/year.

Income tax does not affect the wealthy or even most of the well to do.

well, the top 1% alone pay 40% of all Federal income tax

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your logic has an unspolen premise that because revenue has increased a given amount, there can be no argument that it should not be increased furher.

Same article: "Even if Mr. Obama were to bludgeon Republicans into giving him all of the tax-rate increases he wants, the Joint Tax Committee estimates this would yield only $82 billion a year in extra revenue. But if growth is slower as a result of the higher tax rates, then the revenue will be lower too."

So, Barry says he wants tax increases that will yield at most $82 billion when we are $16 trillion in debt. This shows he is not serious, just stalling around to keep spending at $3.5- 4 trillion a year.

 

[william the wie]

thats great, but doesn't address the issue as to where it going to come from......if you want to take the incremental approach, $80 Bn for the 'tax cuts on the rich' is fine as a starting point, but thats just a rate increase, money flees were taxes appear, and- we all know where the real money is, and it aint in the top 2% regards how we accrue revenue its in the middle class.

if we are going to grow the fed revenue slice of the gdp pie, the slice we take has to be larger, not necessarily by %, but by actual dollars, in round numbers- 18 % of 125 is better than 19% of 100....closing loopholes, deductions and a MODEST increase in taxes, when we get back above 3% gdp is I think the best way to go, obama knows this thats why he signed off on the bush cuts again in 2010, we are below the gdp growth in the 3 quarters running up to the same time now, December, than they were then.

Trajan the killer argument is the growth in LLCs and their declining costs relative to income. To take an extreme example Bezos as head of Amazon makes 80,000 a year. Gates before he went philanthropic purportefly made even less. Between perks like multi-million dollar homes (for key man security) and similar dodges the really rich have really low taxable incomes.

For another example no movie since at least the 1930s has produced a net income and all of those production companies listed in the titles exist to avoid taxable income and often by staggering amounts. The children of Fess Parker, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Sam Walton are or were prior to decease mindboggling rich and their heirs as well but I would be amazed if their taxable income were $200,000/year.

Income tax does not affect the wealthy or even most of the well to do.

well, the top 1% alone pay 40% of all Federal income tax

The reported top 1% in income and the actual top 1% in wealth rarely overlap.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Trajan the killer argument is the growth in LLCs and their declining costs relative to income. To take an extreme example Bezos as head of Amazon makes 80,000 a year. Gates before he went philanthropic purportefly made even less. Between perks like multi-million dollar homes (for key man security) and similar dodges the really rich have really low taxable incomes.

For another example no movie since at least the 1930s has produced a net income and all of those production companies listed in the titles exist to avoid taxable income and often by staggering amounts. The children of Fess Parker, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Sam Walton are or were prior to decease mindboggling rich and their heirs as well but I would be amazed if their taxable income were $200,000/year.

Income tax does not affect the wealthy or even most of the well to do.

well, the top 1% alone pay 40% of all Federal income tax

The reported top 1% in income and the actual top 1% in wealth rarely overlap.

seems hard to believe that some of the top folks get good advice and others don't or is that when you have a high corporate salary there is no escape so those poor folks have to pay up while other who can get less direct self-employment income etc have options??

 

[william the wie]

well, the top 1% alone pay 40% of all Federal income tax

The reported top 1% in income and the actual top 1% in wealth rarely overlap.

seems hard to believe that some of the top folks get good advice and others don't or is that when you have a high corporate salary there is no escape so those poor folks have to pay up while other who can get less direct self-employment income etc have options??

A huge part of it is ego. Cary Grant was a dirt cheap star upfront because he was getting part of the gross on every film, charged $0.25 for every autograph and grabbed every endorsement in sight that wouldn't hurt his cash flow from other sources. Frank Sinatra insisted on headlining everything and became much less rich because of that.

Paulsen is the famous big short but the book "The Big Short" has a laundry list of people who had bigger opportunities than Paulsen but who ended up with less money because they led with their ego.

Romney and KKR did well in private equity but every so often Bloomberg, CNBC or other news outlets will bring in somebody even bigger who steps out of shadows of private equity.

Publicity is a wealth reducer and should be avoided. Since income but not wealth is easy to get information on. Goals not IQ make a huge difference in outcomes. Wellington and Cromwell never lost a battle but are rarely quoted on warfare.

 

[Rshermr]

So, wiseaker says:

Right or wrong, in 2009 we spend $862 billion on the stimulus bill, but in subsequent years we kept on spending that amount. To minimal positive effect, I might add.

No, actually we did not. The stimulus was about $840B, It was partially spent from 2009 through this year, with more to come. About $770B of the $840B has been spent, though of that $770B about $290B was tax increases. So in short, wiseacre, we did not spend $862B in 2009, nor did we spend that amount in subsequent years. You seem to have a problem with truth.
Relative to the minimal positive effect, the CBO would disagree completely. Here is an article in the Wn Post that has the response from Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the CBO, in his testimony to the House Budget Committee. In July of 2012.
" under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”

Elmendorf’s testimony came in response to questions from Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), a member of the tea party caucus. Huelskamp asserted that the stimulus was a failure because it did not keep the jobless rate below 8 percent, as the Obama administration predicted.

“Where did Washington mess up?” Huelskamp demanded. “Because you’re saying most economists think it should’ve worked. It didn’t.”

Most economists not only think it should have worked; they think it did work, Elmendorf replied. CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession."
Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post

Daily Kos: CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

So, looks like we can believe you, Wiseacre, or we can believe the CBO. And you have no independent evidence of any kind behind you. Just GOP talking points. And in this case, just lies. So, it would make you either ignorant, or a liar. Unless, of course, you believe we should believe you instead of the cbo.

You know why receipts are up last year and this year? Cuz the rich guys are already in the process of selling out in anticipation of the fiscal cliff in 2013. 2013 earnings are showing up in 2012 for tax reasons; there are already other tax increases coming from the expiration of the Social Security tax to the new taxes in the ACA.

And, of course, you have no evidence of this sentence full of dogma either, do you wiseacre? Of course not, at least no independent and non partial evidence. Just con dogma. What are we to think of you??

If Obama also gets his tax hike on the rich on top of that, don't be surprised if we see another recession next year.

Like always, eh, Wiseacre. Do you have an example of an economy with high unemployment being hurt by a federal income tax increase? You know, like Clinton. Except, of course, unemployment improved greatly, the economy was great, and we ended up with a deficit. You know, like we have not had under any republican president in the past 50 years.
Or reagan, when he raised taxes 11 times after the unemployment rate hit 10.8% in 1982. Except, of course, the results were improved unemployment numbers and a decrease in the deficit.
But, what the hell, wiseaker, you should be able to make up some instance when tax increases have hurt a high unemployment economy.
If anyone, including you, wiseacre, wants to know where, when, how much, for what the stimulus was spent, then here is the impartial web site that tracks it. No dogma, just the facts:
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money

 

[The Rabbi]

Weve already discussed and debunked the CBO's analysis of the stimulus many many times.
The truth is that we have spent nearly a trillion dollars on stimulus and the economy is turning in the worst performance for a recovery ever.
Obama's "plan" is to raise taxes right now and promise cuts 10 years down the road. That isn't a serious position, unless he plans on being President For Life. Which I wouldn't totally discount.
Look at the chart. If we adopt the same budget we had in 2007 the deficit would nearly go away. Let's do it.