Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Dec 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Ray-914631 said: (Quote) Tony-73158 said: If Obama gets his tax increase in the 2%, it will o...
(Quote) Ray-914631 said:

[quote]Tony-73158 said:

If Obama gets his tax increase in the 2%, it will only fund the govt for less than 9 days.

9 days = a 3% increase in federal revenue, which is a substantial amount of money.

I would immediately question the source of this citation because they dismissed it as a mere 9 days of funding (spin).


If you look at all the big inventions of the last 60 years, were they derived from the public sector, or the private sector?

Take something we all know: the internet. Developed in academia through federal grant funding. And its free, imagine that?

--hide--


"If Obama gets his tax increase in the 2%, it will only fund the govt for less than 9 days.
"9 days = a 3% increase in federal revenue, which is a substantial amount of money.
"I would immediately question the source of this citation because they dismissed it as a mere 9 days of funding (spin).


It isn't spin, Tony. It's math.

In 2011, federal spending was $3.8 trillion. That is equal to spending $10.4 billion a day.

Actually, the 9 days number is incorrect. It's in the popular press (and easier to say on the streets) but it isn't correct. According to the Congressional Budget Office August 2012 update report, the total amount in 10 years of the uncollected Bush tax cuts on the upper 2 percent of incomes is equal to about $950 billion. However, the amount of collections is different every year. In fact, the collections don't even pass the $95 billion in any year until 2018.

Look at this chart, my friend: www.offthechartsblog.org.

The end of the Bush tax cuts on the upper 2 percent will raise $42 billion in their first year (2013) and $39 billion in their second year (2014).

This also assumes that the ever-changing tax code doesn't change for 10 years.

Based on 2011 revenues - the latest available - if my math is correct, the end of the upper 2 percent Bush cuts is equal to a 1.9 percent increase in 2013.

And, keep in mind, this tax increase doesn't include one iota of entitlement reform, like changes to keep solvent our programs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There is no downsizing of government. There is no merging of agencies with this tax hike.

I think you would have to agree with me that in the final analysis this picture isn't "substantial" reform by any stretch of the facts.

Dec 14th 2012 new

(Quote) John-727073 said: "If Obama gets his tax increase in the 2%, it will only fund the govt for les...
(Quote) John-727073 said:



"If Obama gets his tax increase in the 2%, it will only fund the govt for less than 9 days.
"9 days = a 3% increase in federal revenue, which is a substantial amount of money.
"I would immediately question the source of this citation because they dismissed it as a mere 9 days of funding (spin).


It isn't spin, Tony. It's math.

In 2011, federal spending was $3.8 trillion. That is equal to spending $10.4 billion a day.

Actually, the 9 days number is incorrect. It's in the popular press (and easier to say on the streets) but it isn't correct. According to the Congressional Budget Office August 2012 update report, the total amount in 10 years of the uncollected Bush tax cuts on the upper 2 percent of incomes is equal to about $950 billion. However, the amount of collections is different every year. In fact, the collections don't even pass the $95 billion in any year until 2018.

Look at this chart, my friend: www.offthechartsblog.org.

The end of the Bush tax cuts on the upper 2 percent will raise $42 billion in their first year (2013) and $39 billion in their second year (2014).

This also assumes that the ever-changing tax code doesn't change for 10 years.

Based on 2011 revenues - the latest available - if my math is correct, the end of the upper 2 percent Bush cuts is equal to a 1.9 percent increase in 2013.

And, keep in mind, this tax increase doesn't include one iota of entitlement reform, like changes to keep solvent our programs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There is no downsizing of government. There is no merging of agencies with this tax hike.

I think you would have to agree with me that in the final analysis this picture isn't "substantial" reform by any stretch of the facts.

--hide--

Another problem is that higher tax rates on "the rich" will simply lead to more means of tax avoidance, usually by seeking ways to not have to report the top rate. No tax rate structure after WWII has ever captured more than 21% of GDP, and usually it's 18%.

This says two things:

1). That revenue is minimally related to tax structure or "progressivity", but directly related to the performance of the economy, and that.

2). There is no way to "tax' ourselves into balance. The cuts must be made, or the country will collapse.

History shows that when politicians are faced with the choices in (2), they usually choose the later. In this case, it will be willingly; the politicans can't say they didn't know.

Dec 14th 2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: Another problem is that higher tax rates on "the rich" will simply lead to mo...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

Another problem is that higher tax rates on "the rich" will simply lead to more means of tax avoidance, usually by seeking ways to not have to report the top rate. No tax rate structure after WWII has ever captured more than 21% of GDP, and usually it's 18%.

This says two things:

1). That revenue is minimally related to tax structure or "progressivity", but directly related to the performance of the economy, and that.

2). There is no way to "tax' ourselves into balance. The cuts must be made, or the country will collapse.

History shows that when politicians are faced with the choices in (2), they usually choose the later. In this case, it will be willingly; the politicans can't say they didn't know.

--hide--


Excellent points, Steven.

Jan 14th 2013 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: Does anyone see what is wrong with Obama's $250,000 threshold and top 2-percent chant?...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:

Does anyone see what is wrong with Obama's $250,000 threshold and top 2-percent chant?

First of all, business owners file their company's earnings on their personal Federal 1040's.
The same 1040's where you and I report our measly salaries. Then they use Schedule C
or Schedule E to report the company's income and expenses.

This would easily mean that in many cases, they would have more than $250,000 under
Income under "Gross receipts" or "Rental Income." From this they have to deduct the costs associated
with that Income. This in no way implies that they pocket the $250K.

I am also dubious that only the top TWO PERCENT of the American workforce is above that
$250,000 figure which Obama keeps citing. That is why there is such a strong backlash against
raising tax rates on the TOP TWO percent. Is it really going to be the TOP TWO percent?

Obama, go back to "Community Organizing!" Please.

--hide--



Nope.

James ☺

Posts 41 - 44 of 44