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

[redsamurai]

^^^
sig material!

cpt sweeping generalizations is right on certain things, never said he wasn't.

 

[mrplunkey]

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?

First of all, they won't get anywhere close to $900B over those 10 years. The wealthy will shelter at least half (or more) or their income.

But let's pretend the $900B is real. So over 10 years, you can't even fund one of our $1.0-$1.5 trillion dollar deficits.

What great news! Instead of going bankrupt on Jan 2019, we get to hold out all the way till August of the same year! Hoooooray!

Here are some inescapable truths:

1) Spending has to be massively cut. Not trimmed, not adjusted -- massively cut.

2) Defense and entitlements both get the axe.

3) Taxes need to be raised -- a lot. And the thought that it will all come from a mere 2% of taxpayers is a complete joke. The middle class needs to take a huge hit as well. Maybe our new brackets can be 45%, 40% and 30%.

But if we don't address 1 & 2, then 3 is a non-issue anyway.

There's a part of me that wants to offer Barry a simple deal: Lock in the bush tax cuts for all four years of his presidency. In exchange, raise the debt ceiling to $30 trillion. If he wants to spend us into oblivion, so be it. We're going to get there anyway so sooner is probably better than later -- at least we'll get a shot at rebuilding sooner.

 

[mrplunkey]

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.

I completely agree.

I'd:

1) Raise the retirement and eligibility ages for SS and Medicare by one month per year indefinitely until the programs are phased out. To keep these programs limping along in the meantime, I'd means-test the benefits and find other ways to limit exposure (i.e. copayments for end-of-life care insisted by families).

2) I'd phase-in a defined contribution-style plan that is 100% tax free (even upon withdrawal of funds) as long as it is used for retirement or health benefits.

 

[Dial_tone]

Debt crisis wakeup call comes and the American response is...

 

[mrplunkey]

The games both sides are playing right now are disgusting.

There's $190B in tax cuts hung-up because Barry wants to sting 2% of the population to raise $52B

But in the same proposal, he wanted to spend $150B on another wasteful "stimulus". So he'd spent that $52B three times over before the money was even collected.

 

[Headholio]

First of all, they won't get anywhere close to $900B over those 10 years. The wealthy will shelter at least half (or more) or their income.

But let's pretend the $900B is real. So over 10 years, you can't even fund one of our $1.0-$1.5 trillion dollar deficits.

Arguing that you don't believe the CBO accounting is retarded. I've played that game with you before and you looked kind of foolish, but obviously you don't learn your lesson. CBO takes into account tax sheltering and every other simple minded dodge you can come up with. Sticking your head in the sand does not change the facts, though I know it is one of your favorite things to do.

What great news! Instead of going bankrupt on Jan 2019, we get to hold out all the way till August of the same year! Hoooooray!

You are still arguing that a tax increase doesn't solve the debt? You could say that about any single deficit reduction line item. It is however, one proposed change that makes one of the biggest positive impacts on the debt with one of the smallest negative impacts on economic growth.

1) Spending has to be massively cut. Not trimmed, not adjusted -- massively cut.

2) Defense and entitlements both get the axe.

3) Taxes need to be raised -- a lot. And the thought that it will all come from a mere 2% of taxpayers is a complete joke. The middle class needs to take a huge hit as well. Maybe our new brackets can be 45%, 40% and 30%.

Yeah, it sounds simple until you get into the specifics of what gets cut and who gets hurt. And taxes are not so simple. You could raise taxes on 90% of Americans to come up with roughly an equal amount to what you get by taxing the top 2%. The effect on the economy however, is the reason no one suggests it.

There's a part of me that wants to offer Barry a simple deal: Lock in the bush tax cuts for all four years of his presidency. In exchange, raise the debt ceiling to $30 trillion. If he wants to spend us into oblivion, so be it. We're going to get there anyway so sooner is probably better than later -- at least we'll get a shot at rebuilding sooner.

You don't seem to understand that raising the debt ceilling does not approve 1 dollar of increased spending. Raising the debt ceiling is required to pay our bills, many of which were caused by George Bush recklessness. Not paying the bills has never before been considered a political tactic until todays radical right took over. We have to pay our bills, and to say otherwise is treasonous and unconstitutional.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment

“the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned,”

 

[mrplunkey]

Arguing that you don't believe the CBO accounting is retarded. I've played that game with you before and you looked kind of foolish, but obviously you don't learn your lesson. CBO takes into account tax sheltering and every other simple minded dodge you can come up with. Sticking your head in the sand does not change the facts, though I know it is one of your favorite things to do.



You are still arguing that a tax increase doesn't solve the debt? You could say that about any single deficit reduction line item. It is however, one proposed change that makes one of the biggest positive impacts on the debt with one of the smallest negative impacts on economic growth.



Yeah, it sounds simple until you get into the specifics of what gets cut and who gets hurt. And taxes are not so simple. You could raise taxes on 90% of Americans to come up with roughly an equal amount to what you get by taxing the top 2%. The effect on the economy however, is the reason no one suggests it.



You don't seem to understand that raising the debt ceilling does not approve 1 dollar of increased spending. Raising the debt ceiling is required to pay our bills, many of which were caused by George Bush recklessness. Not paying the bills has never before been considered a political tactic until todays radical right took over. We have to pay our bills, and to say otherwise is treasonous and unconstitutional.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment

Keep blathering in circles. Maybe you can actually convince someone here that a $52B tax increase will have an impact on a $1.0+ Trillion dollar deficit.

One a positive note, the US bankruptcy will serve as a good warning to others for generations to come. Maybe someone else can learn from our ignorance.

 

[Headholio]

1) Spending has to be massively cut. Not trimmed, not adjusted -- massively cut.

2) Defense and entitlements both get the axe.

3) Taxes need to be raised -- a lot. And the thought that it will all come from a mere 2% of taxpayers is a complete joke. The middle class needs to take a huge hit as well. Maybe our new brackets can be 45%, 40% and 30%.

What you describe in general, is the fiscal cliff. And if you care to read the CBO report on the fiscal cliff, it actually does reduce the deficit.

 

[mrplunkey]

What you describe in general, is the fiscal cliff. And if you care to read the CBO report on the fiscal cliff, it actually does reduce the deficit.

The fiscal cliff is less than one-half of the financial improvements that we'd have to do. And even then, it doesn't address the re-balloning of entitlements as well as the mother of all entitlements we have coming (BarryCare).

I love watching people bitch about the measly cuts in defense and entitlements that are on the table right now. That's a far cry from what cuts need to be made.

Oh and P.S... Even if we did get to budget neutral someday, you do realize we'd need to pay down some of that $16.4 Trillion, don't you? Or does that just go on the credit card forever?

 

[billfred]

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.

When SS was introduced the average age of a male was 58. You need to move the retirement age to at least 75 to get it back in sync for what it was originally intended for.