Skip to main content

The time to raise taxes is now. I can't argue any longer that we need to cut spending. It's obvious we have to raise more revenue. Because without a doubt, the federal government has to spend $3.6 trillion dollars a year. They HAVE TO.

 

I mean if they don't, we'll have starving babies and dead seniors in the streets. We'll have hordes of uneducated doofuses wandering the streets and most of us will have limbs blown off from faulty consumer products, IF our wise overlords can't spend $3.6 trillion dollars a year...most likely about $4 T next year and $4.5T the year after. But they gotta have it, or we're all doomed.

 

So we have to raise revenue. Lord knows we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. Of course that problem was caused by the "Bush" tax cuts. All those filthy rich crooks taking what is rightfully ours! Am I right?

 

Total revenue $2.4 trillion

Total expenditures $3.6 trillion

Deficit $1.2 trillion

Debt $14 trillion

 

So, all we have to do is raise taxes on those cheating millionaires and billionaires and we'll have all the money we need...am I right?

 

Those fat cat millionaires and billionaires, the Top 1% don't pay their fair share. So they need to be punished and forced to help out.

 

Oh wait a minute, the Top 1% of income earners are $380,000 and over. Hmmm, not exactly fat cat billionaires are they? Well they deserve to be punished anyway, am I right?

 

According to 2008 income tax data the Top 1% had an AGI of $1.6 trillion...well, jeeze if we tax them at 100%, we still can't cover our $3.6 T in expenditures.

 

We need to expand our net. How about the Top 10%...surely those evil *******s that are in the Top 10% should bear more of the burden...am I right?

 

Wow, the Top 10% includes those incomes of $114,000 and over...not exactly fat cat material. And I seem to be harsher on these guys than President Obama...he said he wouldn't raise taxes on less than $200K or was it $250K...I don't remember, he kept moving the line. Anyway, someone making $114K is a lot more than I make...so obviously these people are theives and their wealth was accumulated dishonestly.

 

According to 2008 income tax data the Top 10% had an AGI of $3.8 trillion. Now we're talking. Now we can cover our expenditures...surely there would be no adverse economic effects if we taxed these trolls at near 100%...am I right?

 

Well wait a minute. If we taxed them at 100%, that wouldn't leave anything for our brothers and sisters at the state and local level to suck-off...I mean...extract...income from.

 

So let's expand our net to the Top 25%. I mean they make more money than 75% and that's just not fair.

 

Hmmm, the Top 25% includes income of $67K and over. My dad, after working hard, putting in many hours for many years, finally had a job making about that much before he retired. He seemed to be a decent enough guy and I kind of always hoped to follow in his footsteps...Well no time to think of that now. We have a Revenue Problem...And by definition, if someone makes more than me, they are an evil, dishonest SOB.

 

Top 25% AGI $5.6T. OK, we have to raise $3.6T and save some for the states and locals. If we tax them at 65% we raise $3.6T. Perfect. That covers federal expenditures and leaves 35% for state/locals to feed off...err, I mean...raise revenue for their wonderful, glorious programs.

 

I don't know what those folks are going to use to pay their bills. I'm not really sure who is going to invest in businesses to create new jobs. Ha! What am I thinking? People don't create jobs...Presidents do! Of course...shew, load off my mind.

 

Well, I can remember back in my younger days Dad used to slip a few bucks to help me out when I needed it. I don't know how these folks are going to be able to help out their loved ones...welfare maybe? Oh yeah, that's right they make too much money to qualify for that.

 

Maybe it's not exactly fair to let the Top 25% pay for everything.

 

Let's see...the Top 50%...Wait a second, hold the phone...That's Me!

 

OK, maybe the math is a little fuzzy...but remember the deficits were caused by the Bush tax cuts and all we have to do to close the deficit is to raise taxes on the rich. At least that's what Harry Reid says, and I believe him. Because that's the problem right? It's not spending, it's the fact that taxes were lowered for all of Bush's buddies...that's why we're are in this mess, right?

 

But to reach the spending level of just ONE fiscal year..."The Rich" has to be defined as someone making 30K a year!

 

But, let us not forget...we don't have a spending problem...we have a revenue problem.

 

Yeah, right.

 

 

 

**************************

The Constitution. Every Issue, Every time. No Exceptions, No Excuses.

 

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."---Thomas Jefferson

 

"That's what governments are for... get in a man's way."---Mal Reynolds Capt. of Serenity, "Firefly-Class" spaceship

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

No need to raise taxes, just tweek the tax code to provide revenue enhancement from citizens and corporations.  Get rid of Reagans EITC.   Get rid of all the special interest tax deductions for various industries.  There is no reason taxes need to be raised higher than they were during the Clinton admin, when the budget was balanced and the economy was only growing at an average rate.  

This Clinton?

 

 

Bill Clinton: Lower The Corporate Tax Rate For Debt-Ceiling Deal

Clinton

The Huffington Post  Alexander Eichler  First Posted: 07/ 5/11 10:30 AM ET Updated: 07/ 5/11 01:46 PM ET

 

As the deadline to strike a deal on the debt ceiling draws closer, former president Bill Clinton criticized the nation’s corporate tax rate over the weekend, saying it should be lowered as part of an agreement between the parties, according to Politico.

“We’ve got an uncompetitive rate,” Clinton told a crowd at the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday, Politico reports. “We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay."

“But how can they do that by August 2?” Clinton added, referring to the cutoff point for negotiations, the date when the U.S. will reach the limit of its borrowing abilities and likely begin defaulting on its loans.

Exactly.  Make the rate 25% on net, no deductions.  Make it higher on profits earned offs**** to encourage hiring in the US. 

 

Most Americans, 73%, prefer a combination of revenue increases along with spending cuts.  Only 1 in 5 prefer to cut the deficit by spending cuts alone. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx?utm_source=add%2Bthis&utm_medium=addthis.com&utm_campaign=sharing&utm_term=Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes

Last edited by Mr.Dittohead

Despite all this supposed suffering coming to the old folks, I'll bet Obama's cronies and campaign contributors like Acorn, SEIU, UAW, and corporate contributors won't suffer. That's why his campaign fund is $89M, largest by far in world history. He hands out boatloads of our money, and truckloads come back to him. Money laundering.

Last edited by Winston Niles Rumfoord

I've read that Obama originally stated he would approve a cut of one dollar in spending for every dollar of additional revenue.  Now, its a cut of three dollars in spending for each dollar of additional revenue.

 

Which, is what Tip O'Neill promised Reagan. Reagan never saw the cuts. And, admittedly, didn't veto enough appropriation bills.  Sorry, seen this movie.   

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

No need to raise taxes, just tweek the tax code to provide revenue enhancement from citizens and corporations.  Get rid of Reagans EITC.   Get rid of all the special interest tax deductions for various industries.  There is no reason taxes need to be raised higher than they were during the Clinton admin, when the budget was balanced and the economy was only growing at an average rate.  

 

The above post is my satirical way of showing the folly of taxing “the rich” and the silliness of claiming our current deficit problems are revenue related and has nothing to do with spending.  And also the class warfare politicians and the media try to bait us into.

 

I was using sarcasm saying if it wasn’t for the Bush tax cuts, we wouldn’t be in this mess.  And yet, we get this:

 

"...There is no reason taxes need to be raised higher than they were during the Clinton admin, when the budget was balanced..."

 

That is pretty much saying:  “Repeal the Bush tax cuts and our deficit problems will be solved”…Once again when it comes to the Federal government spending $3.6T…hey nothing to see here, move along…they have to spend that or we would all be dead in a ditch somewhere.

 

Well I hate to point out the obvious, but it seems like I have to…You get balanced budgets and surpluses by spending less than what you bring in.  I know, quite a novel idea isn’t it?

 

In 2000 federal expenditures were 18.2% GDP, in 2011 it’s estimated at 25.3%GDP.  Now to be fair in 2000 tax receipts equaled 20.6%GDP, so if we went back to the Clinton era tax structure and allowed that all things would be equal...it’s plain we would still have a deficit in the $500 – 600B range adding to the $14T debt we already have.

 

Spending has to be cut. 

 

And FYI for everyone, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.  The “cuts” that our wise overlords are debating are NOT cuts.  The “cuts” that Obama and the dems are offering and the “cuts” the republicans are demanding are only “cuts” inWashington.

 

If $1 million is spent on a program this year and then $900K is spent next year…that is a cut.

 

This is not what is being debated in Washington.  They almost never cut anything.  All this political theater is about how much are they going to “cut” the increase in spending.

 

Example:  basically they are fighting about (random program) increasing it’s annual budget 7% or 6%...either way it’s not a “cut”, it’s an increase.

 

And of course the debate is framed…if you support a 6% increase in spending you hate old people and want to starve babies.  And if you support the 7% increase in spending you are God’s gift to mankind.

 

It’s all a crock…

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×