Debt Ceiling myth

slightofjeff

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

I'm as angry as you are! It is outrageous that the republicans don't think revenue needs to be part of the solution, particularly when you see something like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... y/?hpid=z4

Somebody please explain to me why someone in the top one tenth of a percent should pay 15% in income taxes while I, who earns less than $100K, pays in the 25% bracket. Requiring the top one tenth of a percent to pay 25% would increase revenue by approximately $85.1 Billion. Never mind the others in the top 1% to 10% of the income scale.

Unbelievable, both democrats and republicans should be ashamed of themselves, particularly Beohner. Disgusting!

I might be missing something, but that link you supplied doesn't say anything about the top 0.1% paying 15% in income taxes.

Furthermore, if I'm reading this link correctly, it says the top tax bracket pays 35%.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

I could be wrong. If I am, please correct me.

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

unsung wrote:

end participation in three wars and it is no longer a problem.

The previous U.S government started two of these wars, and in the process ransacked 2 sovereign nations, unleashing sectarian violence and massive instability.
And now that you have economic troubles at home your answer is abandon these countries to their fate?

Not cool. You need to fix the mess you created before simply jumping ship.

Starting a war isn't the same as gatecrashing a party and then slipping out through the back door as soon as someone spills red wine all over the carpet.

I want no complaints from you when bad intel takes out an Afghan family in a predator drone strike then. Fixing it means that collateral damage will occur from time to time.

Also, how do you propose fixing it?

Apparently and according to lots of posters on this forum, killing the enemy only creates more enemies and terrorists.

Next, you have a religion that is split into two groups that like each other about as much as they like the U.S. military.

Leaders pushing for progress have to worry about being assassinated by their own trusted body guards and friends.

And one last question, how "sovereign" was Afghanistan under Taliban rule prior to 9/11?

Halifax2TheMax

slightofjeff wrote:

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

I'm as angry as you are! It is outrageous that the republicans don't think revenue needs to be part of the solution, particularly when you see something like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... y/?hpid=z4

Somebody please explain to me why someone in the top one tenth of a percent should pay 15% in income taxes while I, who earns less than $100K, pays in the 25% bracket. Requiring the top one tenth of a percent to pay 25% would increase revenue by approximately $85.1 Billion. Never mind the others in the top 1% to 10% of the income scale.

Unbelievable, both democrats and republicans should be ashamed of themselves, particularly Beohner. Disgusting!

I might be missing something, but that link you supplied doesn't say anything about the top 0.1% paying 15% in income taxes.

Furthermore, if I'm reading this link correctly, it says the top tax bracket pays 35%.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

I could be wrong. If I am, please correct me.

Good call and nice link. I should have been clearer in my "rant." The wealthiest one tenth of one percent earn the vast majority of their wealth via investment income, taxed at 15%, usually stock options as compensation or access to investment vehicles closed off to the rest of us. I earn the vast majority, almost all of it, via wages. Reagan's gift to the middle class was to cut investment earnings taxes and increase taxes on wages. The republicans have continued the policy with slightly smaller tax cuts on wages, remember, just go shopping?, but much larger cuts in investment income taxes. Try as I might, I can't switch the dynamic for me personally, as much as I would like to. Doesn't the disparity in growth of income and corporate profits versus average wage growth bother you, particularly when compared to other countries? Bottom line for me is that there needs to be revenue as part of the solution to the debt/budget crisis and the top one tenth of one percent can afford to kick in more than they currently do. Anything less is a disgrace.

mikepegg44

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

I'm as angry as you are! It is outrageous that the republicans don't think revenue needs to be part of the solution, particularly when you see something like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... y/?hpid=z4

Somebody please explain to me why someone in the top one tenth of a percent should pay 15% in income taxes while I, who earns less than $100K, pays in the 25% bracket. Requiring the top one tenth of a percent to pay 25% would increase revenue by approximately $85.1 Billion. Never mind the others in the top 1% to 10% of the income scale.

Unbelievable, both democrats and republicans should be ashamed of themselves, particularly Beohner. Disgusting!

I might be missing something, but that link you supplied doesn't say anything about the top 0.1% paying 15% in income taxes.

Furthermore, if I'm reading this link correctly, it says the top tax bracket pays 35%.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

I could be wrong. If I am, please correct me.

Good call and nice link. I should have been clearer in my "rant." The wealthiest one tenth of one percent earn the vast majority of their wealth via investment income, taxed at 15%, usually stock options as compensation or access to investment vehicles closed off to the rest of us. I earn the vast majority, almost all of it, via wages. Reagan's gift to the middle class was to cut investment earnings taxes and increase taxes on wages. The republicans have continued the policy with slightly smaller tax cuts on wages, remember, just go shopping?, but much larger cuts in investment income taxes. Try as I might, I can't switch the dynamic for me personally, as much as I would like to. Doesn't the disparity in growth of income and corporate profits versus average wage growth bother you, particularly when compared to other countries? Bottom line for me is that there needs to be revenue as part of the solution to the debt/budget crisis and the top one tenth of one percent can afford to kick in more than they currently do. Anything less is a disgrace.

if you have a rate increase on capital gains you will see a massive sell off just before it goes into affect. After the rate increase if would be a while before you started to see any revenue increases if you saw any. the CBO has said it is almost impossible to predict what rate changes will do to revenue...But investing in companies is what we want to encourage, and in order to get the 15% capital gains tax you are required to make a longer term investment in a business in order to not get hit with a simple income tax rate...Long term investments should be encouraged, and one way to encourage them is to keep rates low. Higher rate doesn't always mean more tax revenue.
A one time tax of wealth of those worth more than 10 million dollars could go a long way to paying down the national debt, but would you support such a policy? But what would happen when you grab the wealth? Would it be replaced by the rich making more? at what cost?
Simply raising taxes does not necessarily raise revenue. the only sure fire way to raise revenue is get the god damn economy humming...I think we both agree that getting the economy going would be best for everyone, poor and rich alike...

butterjam

unsung wrote:

When will it be enough? I am not for raising it, end participation in three wars and it is no longer a problem.

I'll repeat this again. When will it be enough? Let's say we raise the limit. We are going to be back in this same mess in another year or two. Should we keep raising it? Where do we draw the line?

I draw the line right now. BOTH parties have been kicking the can down the road to the next Congress. Reid's plan cuts only $200 billion/year for 10 years. That is pathetic. We can cut $1.6 trillion by ripping up the bill we "owe" the Fed.

unsung

Getting rid of the Fed is an even better solution.

Bronx Bombers

CNBC.com Article: Obama 'Unpresidential,' 'Petulant' 'Dividing Us': Langone

President Obama's conduct during the debate over the debt ceiling has divided the country and will inflict damage that will last well after the battle is over, former New York Stock Exchange director Ken Langone said.

Full Story:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43924372