Tax Foundation Study: Warren Buffet's Tax Plan wont even dent our Debt or Deficit.

Liberals and Statists of every label, welcome to Reality......where there is no conceivable way to tax your way out, back to the Imaginationland where you reside. Even raising tax rates to slave-like rates would barely make a dent in our 1.5 trillion dollar budget deficit and our 14 Trillion dollar national debt.

We Cant Tax Our Way Out Of This.........and the Democrat Party cant bring itself to cut so much as a Cowboy Poetry Contest.

God Help Us......Remove the Kenyan Tyrant and The Democrat Party in 2012.
.
.
..
.
.

 

Warren Buffet wants everyone to pay taxes at his own expense. I've said it many times before: Anyone who thinks his secretary is paying more in taxes than he is naive.

Rich people are very good at staying rich.

 

And we can't effectively "cut" our way out of this either. It's going to take cuts and increased revenue; anyone claiming something else, isn't being truthful.

 

BULL(*)(*)(*)(*).........

We could cut our way out of this tomorrow......
.
.
.
.

 

We already have 2 trillion dollars coming in a year. Increasing taxes doesn't mean increasing revenue.

It simply means increasing taxes.

 

on CSPAN today featuring Robert Rector. Check out from 3:50 to 6:50 for a perspective on the typical "poor person" in the USA. Lots of money to cut here.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/FederalSo&showFullAbstract=1

 

We need the increased revenue AND cuts. The multiple experts I've heard/read, pretty much trump your opinion on that here.

 

Cut and raise. Its the only way to get in the black. I'm a proponant of closing almost ALL loopholes, even the marriage deduction, to make sure that people pay the percantage that is actually their tax bracket, no matter how much money they make. If you get that 50% that pays almost nothing to simply pay their tax rates, AND raise the rates on the wealthy, we'd be balanced almost immediately, and could even get a surplus again.

Had Bush not created the tax breaks in teh first place, our economy would be almost no different than today, and the government could have paid for two stimulus packages with lose change lying around the floors of Congress. Thanks pubs. Keep the stance that will ensure the destruction of our nation.

 

In other news: thieves think sentences for burglary are too long!

 

Plainly this is just a load of lies, and the quoted "study" is nothing but a load of stupid lies:

Logan is a liar, and he is lying. "Taking every last penny" from those individuals would mean taxing away their ASSETS, not just their income. And we have already seen that the ASSETS of the super-duper uber-rich are vastly larger than their incomes -- the assets of the top 1% alone are a significant multiple of the national debt. It is probably true that taxing the INCOMES of the super-duper uber-rich at 100% would "only" raise about $180G. But that is about $170G more than you could get by taxing away the entire ASSETS of the poor.

Again, that is just a stupid lie. Logan is not even talking about millionaires. He is talking about people whose INCOMES are over $1M, most of whom have much, much more than $1M in assets. As they are already notionally paying at a 35% rate, increasing their rate to 50% is not that big a step -- and it would reduce the deficit by over $100G. That sounds like it is probably worth doing.

Well, as most of that income is not earned by any commensurate contribution to production, but is in fact a gift from government and society to the rich and privileged in the first place, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea at all.

 

You can make severe cuts to government spending and programs right away. However, just because we have the ability to make cuts, doesn't mean we go on a cutting spree without putting serious and intelligent thought into what needs to be cut, what can be cut, and what cannot. I beleive both sides are willing to make cuts, with people in both parties disagreeing on what to cut. What we need is an all-of-the-above approach to cutting spending, which involves a comprehensive analysis of our fiscal priorities. We also need an all-of-the-above approach to taxation, which can include a combination of intelligent tax cuts, tax increases, tax reform, and tax innovation.

Furthermore, based upon data I have studied, whenever there has been some form of real economic stability, not speculative bubble stability, federal tax revenue has reached the benchmark of 18% of the GDP. In Obama's first two years as President, federal revenue was 15.2% of the GDP, well below the ideal amount for federal revenue. I think it is clear that at least a modest tax increase is needed.

 

Who are these experts? Robert Reich? Paul Krugman? Barack Obama? Nancy Pelosi?

Your talking about a bunch of blithering idiots who have never ran so much as a lemonade stand much less a candy store.

Increase taxes......collect 100-200 Billion more per year (minus the net negative effect it will have on the economy and future revenues)

...........WHAT THEN?

A 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit and a Democrat Party that cant bring itself to cut so much as a Cowboy Poetry Contest.
.
.
.

 

Why, because they're experts? We've been listening to so called "experts" and we are still no better off. A lot of them had no idea this was going to happen, I doubt they know how this is all going to go.

 

A testament to willfull ignorance........

Federal Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts


This isnt a Revenue Problem.....its a 4 Trillion dollar Government.......for a 14 Trillion dollar economy that is the problem.
.
.
.
.

 

So Reality, The Truth, and The Facts are LYING?

We Cant Tax Our Way Out......come to grips with reality.

So Seizing what We The People make is no longer enough.....now its time to tax what We The People have as well.

Start Taxing Savings Accounts while your at it.......

If your talking Capital Gains then they are paying Capital Gains Tax of 15%.

Raise the Capital Gains to 50%........collect another 100 Billion......WHAT THEN?

Stealing other people's (*)(*)(*)(*) is always a better idea isnt it?
.
.
.
.

 

Look at the federal revenue levels under Bush2 in relation to those of Clinton or Reagan.



Federal revenue under Reagan was 18.2% of the GDP. Federal Revenue under Clinton was 19% of the GDP. Federal revenue under Bush2 was 17.6%, the 2nd lowest average revenue levels of any President within the last 30 years.

 

You mean look at them through the Democrat prism because the blatant truth wasnt adequate?

Which of course means Revenue to GDP in this case......

Surprise......A High or Higher Revenue/GDP...........ISNT A GOOD THING.

Do you think a 90% Revenue/GDP would be some sort of liberal utopia?

Do you think a larger parasite somehow benefits the host organism?
.
.
.

 

Revenue to GDP doesn't show who takes in more revenue. It only shows how much revenue they took in as a percentage of the entire economy. The average Revenue to GDP was always 17 to 19 percent per Year. So you judge which administration had the lowest Revenue to GDP is just dumb.

Now that we got that ignorance out the way, federal revenue under Bush was 2 Trillion year. Federal Revenue under Clinton was 1.5 Trillion a year. Federal Revenue under Reagan was not even a Trillion a year.

 

No, I beleive we need to take a positive economic stance in relation to this issue. I have observed that real economic stability, not speculative bubble stability, within the past 30 years has required 18% or more of federal revenue as a percentage of GDP. I beleive we need to reach this benchmark, not tax people to death. This will require tax reform and appropriate tax increases to reach this goal. Tax cuts should be implemented to encourage business investment.

 

You truely believe government prevents bubbles, rather than creates them........and said government needs 1 out of every 5 dollars to accomplish such?

Raise taxes in this economy and your going to make the Obama Depression Great.
.
.
.

 

It certainly is. Deliberately excising the 2001 and 2002 years when revenue fell off a cliff because of the Bush tax cuts is proof positive of willful ignorance. It is also breathtakingly dishonest.

 

Revenue for 2001 was 1.991 Trillion dollars
Revenue for 2002 was 1.851 Trillion dollars

Any years below this point in history revenue was pretty much lower, except for the last three years of the Clinton administration when he lowered the capital gains taxes rate to 20 percent.

So yeah, willful ignorance I guess.

 

The JGTRRA Tax Cuts werent even signed until May 2003.......why would you judge the effect of Tax Cuts before they are all implemented?

It is willfull ignorance that leads Democrat voters to believe a tax cut yields a massive decline in revenues.....when its just the opposite.

Federal Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts



Federal Revenue After The Reagan Tax Cuts



Federal Revenue After The JFK/Johnson Tax Cuts



The three largest tax cuts in US History......yielding three of the largest periods of economic, revenue, and job growth in US History.

The best way for government to raise revenue......especially in this dying Obama economy.......is to cut taxes.
.
.
.
.

 

I have proved the "facts" in that study are a carefully edited version of reality that is calculated to mislead the reader.

Other advanced countries raise more revenue as a fraction of GDP than the USA spends. That is reality. They just don't spend it all on a ludicrously overgrown and wasteful military and subsidies to the rich and privileged. What we can't do is keep increasing the welfare subsidy giveaways to the rich and privileged and expect to get out of this mess. Come to grips with reality.

"We The People"?? Since when are the super-duper uber-rich "We The People"? Aside from an honest few like Buffett, who can see that America is in desperate danger of suicide-by-worshipping-the-privileged, they couldn't care less about YOU the people.

You need to shake hands with the reality that most of what THEY the rich and privileged "have" -- most of their asset values -- are not earned wealth at all, but merely legal entitlements to profit by the uncompensated violation of We The People's rights.

Why always be dishonest? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: the apologist for privilege, greed and injustice never has any other type of argument to offer.

Some are. Many are not even paying that.

That's $100G less that people who earned their incomes by commensurate contributions to production have to pay.

It works quite well for the rich and privileged, who almost all got almost everything they have by stealing other people's $#!+.

 

Why would you try to pretend that the first round of tax cuts had no effect on revenue until after the last round of tax cuts? Other than pure dishonesty, of course...

This is what actually happened, all your cretinously dishonest garbage to the contrary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_individual_income_tax_receipts_2000-2009.png

Disproved above.

That is a cretinously dishonest graph, as it shows nominal rather than real revenue, let alone GDP share, and presents that dishonest data on a misleading scale.

False and ridiculous claims based on misleading graphs, as proved above.

Disproved above.