Taxes are going to have to go up

[Guest]

While some say tax the rich, I think it has been proven that that amount of money at whatever cap you use is not going to make a dent in our deficit. It is all political mishmash.

Both candidates say to revise the tax code but neither is specific..Obama just says make it simpler...Romney has a few specifics but not really. So, lets just assume they wont do anything...nobody has for years and it has been sitting there waiting to be fixed.

Budget isnt going to happen it appears. Not avoiding Romney but he has not been in office so all we can say is that Obama makes one every year and touts it, but it never is passed and it is never followed.

We all know we have to cut spending, and even if that happens the amount is suspect for sure.

THUS.....we need to raise taxes on everybody and it seems as simple as that.

[Guest]

While some say tax the rich, I think it has been proven that that amount of money at whatever cap you use is not going to make a dent in our deficit. It is all political mishmash.

Both candidates say to revise the tax code but neither is specific..Obama just says make it simpler...Romney has a few specifics but not really. So, lets just assume they wont do anything...nobody has for years and it has been sitting there waiting to be fixed.

Budget isnt going to happen it appears. Not avoiding Romney but he has not been in office so all we can say is that Obama makes one every year and touts it, but it never is passed and it is never followed.

We all know we have to cut spending, and even if that happens the amount is suspect for sure.

THUS.....we need to raise taxes on everybody and it seems as simple as that.

Now you seem to be thinking in the right mode. Taxes do need to be be raised but no on everyone. Raise taxes on individuals with incomes that exceed $500,000 per couple or $250K as a single filer. Raise taxes on those with $1M income to a higher degree.

Eliminate foreign aid to countries unfriendly to US, reduce the oil subsidies, reduce or eliminate farm subsidies, 5% cut in Federal Agency budgets, government (state and federal) conferences to be held in the city where the employee works by teleconference so no travel is needed.

[Guest]

Now you seem to be thinking in the right mode. Taxes do need to be be raised but no on everyone. Raise taxes on individuals with incomes that exceed $500,000 per couple or $250K as a single filer. Raise taxes on those with $1M income to a higher degree.

Eliminate foreign aid to countries unfriendly to US, reduce the oil subsidies, reduce or eliminate farm subsidies, 5% cut in Federal Agency budgets, government (state and federal) conferences to be held in the city where the employee works by teleconference so no travel is needed.

I have been thinking in the right or correct mode all along.

First if you even read my post, please supply me one economist who says that raising taxes on ONLY the rich does more than make political people happy. It means nothing with the dollar amount toward our deficit. Plus these folks who now pay about 70% of ALL income taxes will find a way to reduce that liability thus my comments on the tax code.

If you read my other thread on the deficit problem, you will find that this problem is huge and what you suggest is pocket change. Plus cutting spending is going to be a political nightmare.

I will not even, out of respect for those of you who think the new health care law is paid for, even mention that.

Everyone has got to pay more taxes....I suggest you read some articles on how deep in the doo doo we really are...how much money we are spending that we do not have. I am trying real hard not to be political and this didnt just happen in the last 3 years, but this is a HUGE problem.

We go over that cliff in December and hang on......recession time...in a big way with lots of pain to get out,

[Guest]

The additional revenues that would result from Obama's proposed tax on those with income above $250 would only amount to 5-6% of the annual deficit. If "rich" was redefined by raising the amount above which people's at rate would increase even higher than $250K, increased revenue would be even less, of course.

A 19:1 spending cuts-to-tax increases would have no chance of passing politically. Almost all the "grand bargains" discussed until now had spending cuts to tax increase ratios of 3:1 or 4:1.

More important, that amount of tax increase doesn't even work arithmetically. ALL discretionary government spending would have to be eliminated to just barely balance the budget. (Even that wouldn't work, of course, because laying off hundreds of thousands federal workers would throw the economy into immediate, deep depression.)

It's quite clear that to actually balance the annual federal budget that there will have to be deep and hurtful cuts to discretionary spending, including defense, as well as major reductions in the funding of Social Security and Medicare and major cuts to those entitlement benefits. But even those cuts wouldn't be enough. Major tax increases would be necessary, probably effecting everyone.

Prove it to yourself--do the arithmetic.

[Guest]

I have been thinking in the right or correct mode all along.

First if you even read my post, please supply me one economist who says that raising taxes on ONLY the rich does more than make political people happy. It means nothing with the dollar amount toward our deficit. Plus these folks who now pay about 70% of ALL income taxes will find a way to reduce that liability thus my comments on the tax code.

If you read my other thread on the deficit problem, you will find that this problem is huge and what you suggest is pocket change. Plus cutting spending is going to be a political nightmare.

I will not even, out of respect for those of you who think the new health care law is paid for, even mention that.

Everyone has got to pay more taxes....I suggest you read some articles on how deep in the doo doo we really are...how much money we are spending that we do not have. I am trying real hard not to be political and this didnt just happen in the last 3 years, but this is a HUGE problem.

We go over that cliff in December and hang on......recession time...in a big way with lots of pain to get out,

If you carefully read my post, you will find that I am right. Thank you for your interest.

[Guest]

Now you seem to be thinking in the right mode. Taxes do need to be be raised but no on everyone. Raise taxes on individuals with incomes that exceed $500,000 per couple or $250K as a single filer. Raise taxes on those with $1M income to a higher degree.

Eliminate foreign aid to countries unfriendly to US, reduce the oil subsidies, reduce or eliminate farm subsidies, 5% cut in Federal Agency budgets, government (state and federal) conferences to be held in the city where the employee works by teleconference so no travel is needed.
All reasonable "starts", but not even remotely close to being enough to eliminate the annual deficit.

Start from one of your last points--cut federal agency budgets by 5%. I assume you mean cut agency budgets except for the Defense Department. Even if all the agencies PLUS the Defense Department were eliminated, we'd still be spending more than we're taking in taxes. The other items you mention are not large expenditures. Last time I looked, all foreign aid only amounted to $25-30 billion a year. The farm subsidies are about another $25 billion a year. I don't know about "oil subsidies". Travel and meeting expenses? Peanuts.

Discretionary spending in the FY 2013 budget was slashed to $1.264 trillion. The request for military spending was lowered to $851 billion. This includes the Defense Department, Overseas Contingency Operations and other defense-related departments like Homeland Security and the State Department.

So total non-defense discretionary spending in FY 2013 is expected to be about $1.3 trillion. The annual deficit is expected to be about $1.5 trillion. So you can see that to balance the budget, spending for all of what we call "government", except the Defense Department, would have to be totally eliminated and we still wouldn't balance the budget.

Because obviously we can't totally eliminate all of "government", the only other alternatives are to slash defense, Social Security and Medicare, and/or increase taxes.

[Guest]

vk - how about if the president gets around to getting more americans full-time work on which they can pay their fair share of taxes as well as go out and spend $ on goods that will generate sales tax, too? how much could that generate?

[Guest]

vk - how about if the president gets around to getting more americans full-time work on which they can pay their fair share of taxes as well as go out and spend $ on goods that will generate sales tax, too? how much could that generate?

I'll jump in on this one.
The President's Jobs Bill would do EXACTLY what you are suggesting, but it is another political football. Creating jobs REQUIRES investment. The manufacturing and business community would deserve their Republican title of 'job creators' if they would invest some of the TRILLIONS they are sitting on. OK, it's a free country and they say they can't invest because they are "afraid".
So the only other alternative is government stimulus. I know you just choked, but remember what you've always known was pure common sense: It Takes Money To Make Money. Once a strong stimulus targeted at reconstruction of our nation's infrastructure creates new jobs and those employees pump all their earnings back into the economy, businesses will see a demand spike and lose their fear of investing. A couple of years of this will finally make the recession history and finally help the housing market turn around. We will temporarily have a larger deficit, but we will finally be able to move toward a balanced budget and even deficit reduction. Of course, that depends on finally withdrawing from Afghanistan and creating a leaner, futuristic Defense Department, as well as some other cuts and a revised tax code previously mentioned here so many, many, many times

[Guest]

at some point many of the folks on this forum will have to understand the country can not spend it way out of the fiscal disastor that it is in.

Just look at your own home finances. You have to balance your budget. That means expenses (money spent) cannot exceed revenues (money coming in). Just think if there was no limit on what you could spend.....on anything you ever wanted and for all your loved ones as well. Just keep going to the bank and ask for more money when you run out. The bank would keep a running tally on what you owe....and they do not ask you to pay anything back. After a while you would owe so much money you will never be able to pay it back.

Now why is it so difficult for people to understand that is exactly what this country is doing. They are borrowing 40 cents of every single dollar they spend. Why is that OK with so many people?

btk

[Guest]

ijusluvit - thanx for jumping in - your post sure makes sense - why do you think it has taken the president so long to LEAD congress to do the right thing by passing the jobs bill? maybe because congress was concerned about the size of the failure of the original stimulus spending and it's failure to lower the unemployment rate? hmmm? if, as you predict, it would take but a few years for the economy to recover - why didn't that happen as a result of stimulus spending? bush's fault? hmmm. so now we have more stimulus in the form of a jobs bill...but how will the jobs bill help any unemployment beyond the construction industry when the $ is targeted for highway construction and transportation projects? hmmm? and now that much of the fear surrounding the health care bill has confirmed that any small business that employes 50/more employees will have to offer health ins to those employees - we can be sure that there won't be a great deal of hiring among small employers!

your itemizing of afghan withdrawal, leaner defense dept, spending cuts, tax code revision, etc also makes so much sense...but based on the performance of this congress, there seems little hope for logic and/or sensibilities. hmmmmm.

[Guest]

ijusluvit - thanx for jumping in - your post sure makes sense - why do you think it has taken the president so long to LEAD congress to do the right thing by passing the jobs bill? maybe because congress was concerned about the size of the failure of the original stimulus spending and it's failure to lower the unemployment rate? hmmm? if, as you predict, it would take but a few years for the economy to recover - why didn't that happen as a result of stimulus spending? bush's fault? hmmm. so now we have more stimulus in the form of a jobs bill...but how will the jobs bill help any unemployment beyond the construction industry when the $ is targeted for highway construction and transportation projects? hmmm? and now that much of the fear surrounding the health care bill has confirmed that any small business that employes 50/more employees will have to offer health ins to those employees - we can be sure that there won't be a great deal of hiring among small employers!

your itemizing of afghan withdrawal, leaner defense dept, spending cuts, tax code revision, etc also makes so much sense...but based on the performance of this congress, there seems little hope for logic and/or sensibilities. hmmmmm.

Your comment on the congress is fair and true. The Senate has about 30 bills that will create or could create jobs in one way or another that they will not debate, discuss or put to a vote because of politics

[Guest]

If one looked up the definition of word "tax" in the dictionary alongside its definition you will find a picture of Obama and the Democratic Congress.

Obama and Reid are pushing through a bill that will substantially increases taxes for some 1.5 million small business owners. In the days before the bubble burst most of my gains in the market originated from the activity spawned by small businesses. Why because they were the positive creators of the growing economy. Now investing in small cap stocks is a major loser and given Obama/Reid lack of foesight will continue to exacerbate the downward spiral.

According to CBO the projected $900 billion to implement ObamaCare over the next 10 years just jumped to $2.6 trillion. I guess the 43.6% tax rate that is causing Candians to move to Florida is going to be looking pretty good to Floridians. If Morse has the kind of monetary sense lamented on these pages then he would be wise to move his act offshore.

[Guest]

vk - how about if the president gets around to getting more americans full-time work on which they can pay their fair share of taxes as well as go out and spend $ on goods that will generate sales tax, too? how much could that generate?
The Congressional Budget Office published a report last year saying that, at current tax rates our economy would have to grow at the rate of 10% per year for fifty straight years to generate enough tax revenue to balance the budget.

Our current rate of economic growth (GDP growth) is around 2% and the country has never in history had a full year of 10% growth in GDP.

Does that help answer your question?

[Guest]

The Congressional Budget Office published a report last year saying that, at current tax rates our economy would have to grow at the rate of 10% per year for fifty straight years to generate enough tax revenue to balance the budget.

Our current rate of economic growth (GDP growth) is around 2% and the country has never in history had a full year of 10% growth in GDP.

Does that help answer your question?

well, it makes me think that's why the president doesn't do much to support growth in the private sector since your numbers seem to indicate there doesn't seem to be much of a point in doing so!

[Guest]

well, it makes me think that's why the president doesn't do much to support growth in the private sector since your numbers seem to indicate there doesn't seem to be much of a point in doing so!

Obama's "job council" hasn't met in 6 MONTHS.

Carney says it's because the President "has a lot on his plate"

Uh huh.

Blog: Obama's 'Jobs Council' hasn't met for 6 months (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/obamas_jobs_council_hasnt_met_for_6_months.html)