Tax Bracket Math... Check Me If I'm Missing Something

[EnderJE]

I guess you have to start somewhere to repair the damage. It doesn't stem the tide, but it's a start.

 

[mrplunkey]

I guess you have to start somewhere to repair the damage. It doesn't stem the tide, but it's a start.

So singling-out 2% of Americans and hitting them with a $52B increase is a "start" to paying for a $1,000+B deficit?

Barry wants a new "stimulus" bill (Read: Personal piggy bank) that's over three times the size of that start -- so it's wasted before the cash is even collected.

 

[Dial_tone]

So no move is worth the effort unless it wipes much more than 20% of the deficit? Got it. What such reductions do you have in mind that have a snowball's chance of getting anywhere?

 

[mrplunkey]

So no move is worth the effort unless it wipes much more than 20% of the deficit? Got it. What such reductions do you have in mind that have a snowball's chance of getting anywhere?

I don't think we'll ever make the cuts. We need to crash first.

Republicans won't let them make the necessary cuts to defense.
Democrats won't let them make the necessary cuts to entitlements.

If you're going to spend over a trillion more than you take in every year, the brackets don't matter unless everyone goes (even the poor) to ~50% rates.

The whole argument is ridiculous.

 

[Dial_tone]

People are living too long; raise the ages for SS eligibility by 3 years. I don't see why that meets any resistance at all except by people in their 60's already.

 

[Headholio]

Name one single line item republican proposal that would add 52 billion dollars to the 2013 budget .....

. A small increase to the previous low tax levels for the wealthy, is the easiest item in budget reform. It impacts the budget the most, and has the least negative impact on the economy.
The CBO estimates a negligable impact on the economy by raising income tax rates to 39% for the top.


And LOL at 52 billion dollars being a small amount. No one ever said that it completely eliminates the deficit. Over 10 years it addes around 900 billion. Is that trivial as well?

Since Bush cut taxes in 2001, it has cost us over a trillion dollars to finance those unfortunate millionaires yachts and vacation homes (top 5%). For the top 10% it has cost over 2 trillion. Is that trivial as well?

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post

What has that money done for us? It has gone into the coffers of the wealthiest Americans. Did it stimulate the economy? Did it create jobs? Obviously not.

We won't kill the deficit in one year by any imaginable tax increases or spending cuts. But the CBO projects a decrease of the deficit as a percentage of GDP over the next 10 years, see page 1:

Much of that projected decline occurs because, under
current law, revenues will rise considerably as a share of
GDP—from 15.8 percent in 2012 to 19.8 percent in
2014 and 21.2 percent in 2022. In particular, in CBO’s
baseline, revenues shoot up by more than 30 percent over
the next two years, mostly because of the recent or scheduled
expirations of tax provisions—such as those that
reduce income and payroll tax rates and limit the reach of​

the alternative minimum tax (AMT)—

Under and alternative scenario where tax cuts are extended the picture is bleak see page 3:​

Under that alternative fiscal scenario, deficits over the
2013–2022 period would be much higher, averaging
5.3 percent of GDP rather than the 1.4 percent reflected
in CBO’s baseline projections (see Table 2 on page 4 and
Figure 1 on page 6). Instead of declining to 61 percent of
GDP, debt held by the public would climb to 93 percent
in 2022, the highest percentage since just after World​

War II (see Figure 2 on page 7).

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/March2012Baseline.pdf​

 

[Headholio]

Even though the Republicans don't have the nuts to say specifically how they would fix the deficit (unspecified tax loopholes etc). The Heritage Foundation has proposed some things. You can argue whether or not these cuts make sense, but one thing for sure, most would be painful. Cuts to small business support, environmental efforts, food stamps, science research, Homeland security, etc.

The easiest and most obvious steps to take are tax rates for the wealthy and cuts to defense.

FINALLY: Here's The Spending The Republicans Want To Cut (But Are Too Chicken To Say So) - Business Insider#

 

[redsamurai]

plunkey was right that neither dems nor reps really want to make the necessary cuts to their constituency. I'm glad he's at least ackowledging now that we're bloated everywhere, not just on liberal area's. Maybe some sense is creeping into the republican base that they're gonna have to take some hard cracks at defense if they are to have any kind of reasoned and rationed stance to tell democrats they have to do the same. Cause right now in washington, didn't the republicans just have a vote to take defense cuts completely out of the picture? If that keeps up it's going to push americans way over to the left and just say fuck that bring every piece of military equipment back home. How on earth are we going to talk about cuts to medicare and social security, which is fine for another 20 years btw, but say military cuts are off the table? redsam is in utter disbeleif over that one.

 

[zeosim]

Fuck I pay taxes on my taxes, could I have more taxes please?

 

[PICK3]

plunkey was right

^^^
sig material!