I just heard this on Hannity, who can fact check it?

He said regarding the Bush Tax Cuts. If they expire, the amount of revenue garnered from the increase in taxes to the Federal Government for one year would operate the Federal Government for just 8 days.

Can that possibly be true?

If Hannity said it then it must be true. but guess what if we don't let them expire as they were intended to then it will help operate the Federal Government for zero days.

it was enacted in 2001 when we were in a similar shitty economic situation. and here we are again. They need to come up with something else besides tax cuts that helped the wealthy the most because it didnt work last time and isn't fixing anything now.

Hannity...enough said.

the tax cuts were designed to expire.

nuff said

I'm sure the Chicken Little's can find a point in this waste of bandwidth.

Hannity=DIPSHIT GOD!

Bow to Hannity, dipshits!

KNEEL!

Can someone answer the question, Is it true?
"tax the rich" will get you 8 days. What then?

He said regarding the Bush Tax Cuts. If they expire, the amount of revenue garnered from the increase in taxes to the Federal Government for one year would operate the Federal Government for just 8 days.

Can that possibly be true? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Pure Mythology. There would be no change.

Can someone answer the question, Is it true?
"tax the rich" will get you 8 days. What then? Originally Posted by Jackie S

the only thing I can find is strictly from Fox News ... they started the "story" in July, (guessing) ??? as an anti Obama campaign tactic???

Im pretty sure if you eliminate every other source of revenue and rested the responsibility of running the ENTIRE government MILITARY included, directly on raising the tax rates on the top 2%, 8 days is even a stretch ... prolly true, but a strawman of the enth degree nonetheless ...

Bush and the congressional republicans designed the tax cuts to expire knowing what was best for the country, and now the republicans say the world will end if they let the tax cuts expire?

Biting them in their fat asses!

OK, Jackie -- I'll take a stab at trying to give you a clear and complete answer.

First of all, I assume you mean just the tax cuts for those earning over $250K, since current proposals involve ending the Bush tax cuts only for the affluent, and that's the assumed threshold according to most reports. Analysts from the Treasury Department and the CBO estimate that the measure would raise revenue by approximately $80 billion per year. However, they apply static analysis, and it rarely appears that revenue increases look very much like a linear function of the rate increase.

So the estimate is almost certainly a bit on the optimistc side. Every time top-bracket rates are increased, some of the anticipated revenue pulls a disappearing act. Many entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners have a great deal of discretion regarding when and in what form to realize income.

So how much additional annual revenue would be produced? It's impossible to say, since this is not something that can be mathematically modeled with any significant degree of efficacy.

Total federal government spending is approximately $10 billion per day. So, yes, if the CBO's static projections were correct, the increase would pay for about eight days of spending. But in the real world, even that is too optimistic.

But I still think a better way of looking at this is to consider that ending the tax cuts for the affluent would, at best, only cover about a nickel of every deficit dollar.

Ending the last decade's tax cuts for all income groups, not just the affluent, would raise several times the amount of revenue that can be realized by restricting tax increases to higher income households.

But, of course, that's not exactly a political winner!

OK, Jackie -- I'll take a stab at trying to give you a clear and complete answer.

First of all, I assume you mean just the tax cuts for those earning over $250K, since current proposals involve ending the Bush tax cuts only for the affluent, and that's the assumed threshold according to most reports. Analysts from the Treasury Department and the CBO estimate that the measure would raise revenue by approximately $80 billion per year. However, they apply static analysis, and it rarely appears that revenue increases look very much like a linear function of the rate increase.

So the estimate is almost certainly a bit on the optimistc side. Every time top-bracket rates are increased, some of the anticipated revenue pulls a disappearing act. Many entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners have a great deal of discretion regarding when and in what form to realize income.

So how much additional annual revenue would be produced? It's impossible to say, since this is not something that can be mathematically modeled with any significant degree of efficacy.

Total federal government spending is approximately $10 billion per day. So, yes, if the CBO's static projections were correct, the increase would pay for about eight days of spending. But in the real world, even that is too optimistic.

But I still think a better way of looking at this is to consider that ending the tax cuts for the affluent would, at best, only cover about a nickel of every deficit dollar.

Ending the last decade's tax cuts for all income groups, not just the affluent, would raise several times the amount of revenue that can be realized by restricting tax increases to higher income households.

But, of course, that's not exactly a political winner! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Thank You. It's mindboggling just how much the Government spends.

It's mindboggling just how much the Government spends. Originally Posted by Jackie S

True that!

It's about double what we spent 12 years ago in nominal dollars.

That's still about a 50% increase after you adjust for inflation.

Thank You. It's mindboggling just how much the Government spends. Originally Posted by Jackie S

This is the key observation.

what happens when you lower it to $200/$150?