That is why you only raise it on the rich!Exactly, because everyone knows the rich don't hire people. If you want a job a ask a poor person! Obama's Buffett tax (millionaire's tax) would theoretically raise 47 billion over ten years. The projected spending for the next ten years is ONE THOUSAND TIMES that; it's meaningless. It's like a salesman offering you a one dollar discount on a thousand dollar television; you'd laugh in his face. This is just a class warfare gimic for Obama. If we are ever going to balance the budget we've got to cut spending. Raising taxes won't get it done.
Originally Posted by WTF
actually, the lost revenue from the bush tax cuts and the two wars in the mid east are deficit devistating .. no chain yank. Originally Posted by CJ7
Of course, that wouldn't raise more than a couple of pennies of every deficit dollar, but it sure would make some of you guys feel good! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnightActually, it's far less than that. Two pennies is two percent. Two percent of the yearly deficit (1.3 trillion) is 26 billion. The Buffett tax is projected to raise 4.7 billion per year. The Buffett tax would have to raise five and one half times as much in order to equal two pennies of every deficit dollar. Politicians know that people don't grasp large numbers, and consequently, are easily fooled by them. When Obama says the Buffett tax will raise 47 billion dollars people think great, that should take care of the problem. It's classic demagoguery.
Actually, it's far less than that. Two pennies is two percent. Two percent of the yearly deficit (1.3 trillion) is 26 billion. The Buffett tax is projected to raise 4.7 billion per year. The Buffett tax would have to raise five and one half times as much in order to equal two pennies of every deficit dollar. Politicians know that people don't grasp large numbers, and consequently, are easily fooled by them. When Obama says the Buffett tax will raise 47 billion dollars people think great, that should take care of the problem. It's classic demagoguery. Originally Posted by joe bloe
does that comment solidify the devistation tax cuts represent to the deficit?Reagan cut the top marginal income tax rates dramatically and revenue to the government doubled. Tax decreases don't always increase revenue, the way they did for Reagan, but to assume that a one percent tax cut necessarily reduces revenue by one percent is simplistic. In a recession the when economy needs stimulating a one percent tax reduction may increase revenue two percent.
not that Im for tax hikes, but sooner or later tax cuts have to be paid for one way or the other. Letting the tax cuts sunset for ALL and replace revenue without creating new policy called Buffett or anything else is by far the most viable solution to the problem. Originally Posted by CJ7
Just think. If we had a simple tax system that people could understand, tax policy would be much more open and effective. The system we have now is a disaster, and works only for those who know how to work the system and lobby Congress for tax breaks that only certain tax lawyers (like those that work for the company hiring the lobbyist) can find. It is an insult, and I think it is a crime against humanity. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyI'm for a national sales tax to replace the income tax (after we repeal the sixteenth amendment). Either that or a flat tax; I think Steve Forbes had a good plan a few years ago. Like you said our current system is a disaster. I think the Fair Tax people calculate that the money spent just to comply with the paperwork for the income tax is several hundred billion dollars per year. I think the real reason that the income tax isn't replaced by a national sales tax is that half the country doesn't care about the problem because they don't pay any income tax.