Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MCWAY on July 11, 2011, 07:55:56 AM
-
AMEN!!!
Mr. President, do the math: $250,000 per year isn’t rich
By Joe Curl - Washington Times
President Obama made $5.5 million in 2009. His $400,000 salary as president was mere walking-around money. He paid more in taxes - $1.8 million - than 90 percent of Americans earn in 10 years. More than some in a lifetime.
Now it makes sense that he wants to pay more in taxes. So let’s add another $1.2 million to his taxes. Thus, $3 million off to the federal government, leaving him just - $2 million. With that, he could definitely lease a private jet — although even that much money would make buying his own out of the question. (Plus, there’s no need. He’s already got one. It’s called Air Force One.)
But Mr. President, you really have no idea about how the rest of America suffers from taxes. And your definition of what is “rich” is so skewed as to be nonsensical. Let’s work the numbers.
Mr. Obama pledged throughout his campaign that he would not raise taxes on middle-class America by one dime, that he’d only target those absurdly rich people making $250,000 or more. And he’s making good on his pledge - he refuses to negotiate with Republican lawmakers over the debt ceiling unless tax hikes are part of the plan. (Oh, and it’s another plan, like health care, that we’ll have to pass to find out what’s in it - even top congressional reporters still have no idea.)
Right now, a couple making $250,000 pays a whopping 33 percent of that to the feds. That’s right, $83,333. Just to make clear, that means that couple works two months for themselves, then a full month for the government every quarter - four months of income per year straight to the feds.
But still, after paying their taxes, they still have $166,667, nothing to scoff at. Oh wait, forgot state and local taxes. Roughly 6 percent for the state - that’s $15,000. About 3 percent for county tax - $7,500. So they’re down to $144,167.
That’s $12,014 per month - lotta cash. But let’s break that down even further. (Pay special attention to this part, Mr. P.) Let’s give them a nice house - $2,500 a month for the mortgage. $9,514 left. (Don’t worry, they only have the one house - can’t afford a second place.) Let’s give them two teenagers, so $500 for food per week. (If you have teenagers, you’ll know that’s no exaggeration.)
Down to $7,514. Now the nitty-gritty. Roughly $250 a month for heating fuel. Another $150 for electricity. About $125 for cable TV and Internet. Another $125 for car insurance. And a whopping $250 per month to the mobile phone company (again, teenagers!) With gas prices, let’s say $100 a week in fuel for two cars.
That leaves them roughly $6,200 per month after all the bills are paid. But wait, there’s more. They’re self-employed, so they pay their own health care - $1,000 a month. Down to $5,200. And one of those teenagers is in college. (Don’t worry; they couldn’t afford an Ivy League school, just a state school.) Still, with that whopping income, they get no help from the feds or the state, so they pay $2,000 a month to the university.
That means at month’s end, they’ve got just $3,200 left. With that, they could afford a couple weeks at the beach in the summer, maybe a trip to Florida in the winter. But they certainly can’t secure their own future with investments. In fact, they’d hardly be able to afford a string of calamities - a bad roof, a busted furnace, a dead car.
Still, the president thinks these folks are rich. And he wants even more of their money. If he raised the tax rate on the highest incomes to that of President Clinton, the feds would take nearly 40 percent from these folks. That’d take another $1,389 per month from them, leaving $1,811. When that second teenager hits college, they’d have to - yes, you got it - borrow $189 per month to make ends meet. And yeah, forget buying clothes, going to movies, dinners out, etc.
Of course, they could trim back their lifestyle - halve their cable bill, take the kids’ phones, maybe set that thermostat to 68 in the winter. But should they really have to? They’ve worked their whole lives, are in their 50s, and have finally made it - they make a quarter of a million dollars a year. Yes, says President Obama - they MUST pay more to the federal government.
So, scratch that beach house, that trip to Florida. And you can forget about these people setting up their own retirement. They’ll now have to depend on the federal government giving them back some of the money they paid in taxes - $2 million over 20 years, $3 million in 30.
Mr. President, just fyi, a couple making $250,000 is not, contrary to your opinion, “rich.” But shouldn’t you already know that?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/10/curl-mr-president-do-the-math-250000-per-year-isnt/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/10/curl-mr-president-do-the-math-250000-per-year-isnt/)
It's a good thing my wife ISN'T working; otherwise, we'd be getting ROBBED by Mr. Hope-and-Change and his crew.
-
Its the typical communist left tactic, call someone who makes 250k a year, who nets 175k out of that a year, a Millionaire.
Unreal. These communists are trying to collapse the nation, I have said so from day one.
-
Its the typical communist left tactic, call someone who makes 250k a year, who nets 175k out of that a year, a Millionaire.
Unreal. These communists are trying to collapse the nation, I have said so from day one.
I wasn't joking when I made that last statement. If my wife worked full time, we'd be pushing that $250K mark. And, if Obama had his way, he'd be siphoning our bank account to give to his leech contingent, who think they deserve the fruits of someone else's labor, simply for having a pulse.
-
You are getting hit anyway. Obama is lying his ass off and this will hit everyone.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/07/11/obama_dems_skirt_the_issue_on_tax_hikes
-
AMEN!!!
Mr. President, do the math: $250,000 per year isn’t rich
By Joe Curl - Washington Times
President Obama made $5.5 million in 2009. His $400,000 salary as president was mere walking-around money. He paid more in taxes - $1.8 million - than 90 percent of Americans earn in 10 years. More than some in a lifetime.
Now it makes sense that he wants to pay more in taxes. So let’s add another $1.2 million to his taxes. Thus, $3 million off to the federal government, leaving him just - $2 million. With that, he could definitely lease a private jet — although even that much money would make buying his own out of the question. (Plus, there’s no need. He’s already got one. It’s called Air Force One.)
But Mr. President, you really have no idea about how the rest of America suffers from taxes. And your definition of what is “rich” is so skewed as to be nonsensical. Let’s work the numbers.
Mr. Obama pledged throughout his campaign that he would not raise taxes on middle-class America by one dime, that he’d only target those absurdly rich people making $250,000 or more. And he’s making good on his pledge - he refuses to negotiate with Republican lawmakers over the debt ceiling unless tax hikes are part of the plan. (Oh, and it’s another plan, like health care, that we’ll have to pass to find out what’s in it - even top congressional reporters still have no idea.)
Right now, a couple making $250,000 pays a whopping 33 percent of that to the feds. That’s right, $83,333. Just to make clear, that means that couple works two months for themselves, then a full month for the government every quarter - four months of income per year straight to the feds.
But still, after paying their taxes, they still have $166,667, nothing to scoff at. Oh wait, forgot state and local taxes. Roughly 6 percent for the state - that’s $15,000. About 3 percent for county tax - $7,500. So they’re down to $144,167.
That’s $12,014 per month - lotta cash. But let’s break that down even further. (Pay special attention to this part, Mr. P.) Let’s give them a nice house - $2,500 a month for the mortgage. $9,514 left. (Don’t worry, they only have the one house - can’t afford a second place.) Let’s give them two teenagers, so $500 for food per week. (If you have teenagers, you’ll know that’s no exaggeration.)
Down to $7,514. Now the nitty-gritty. Roughly $250 a month for heating fuel. Another $150 for electricity. About $125 for cable TV and Internet. Another $125 for car insurance. And a whopping $250 per month to the mobile phone company (again, teenagers!) With gas prices, let’s say $100 a week in fuel for two cars.
That leaves them roughly $6,200 per month after all the bills are paid. But wait, there’s more. They’re self-employed, so they pay their own health care - $1,000 a month. Down to $5,200. And one of those teenagers is in college. (Don’t worry; they couldn’t afford an Ivy League school, just a state school.) Still, with that whopping income, they get no help from the feds or the state, so they pay $2,000 a month to the university.
That means at month’s end, they’ve got just $3,200 left. With that, they could afford a couple weeks at the beach in the summer, maybe a trip to Florida in the winter. But they certainly can’t secure their own future with investments. In fact, they’d hardly be able to afford a string of calamities - a bad roof, a busted furnace, a dead car.
Still, the president thinks these folks are rich. And he wants even more of their money. If he raised the tax rate on the highest incomes to that of President Clinton, the feds would take nearly 40 percent from these folks. That’d take another $1,389 per month from them, leaving $1,811. When that second teenager hits college, they’d have to - yes, you got it - borrow $189 per month to make ends meet. And yeah, forget buying clothes, going to movies, dinners out, etc.
Of course, they could trim back their lifestyle - halve their cable bill, take the kids’ phones, maybe set that thermostat to 68 in the winter. But should they really have to? They’ve worked their whole lives, are in their 50s, and have finally made it - they make a quarter of a million dollars a year. Yes, says President Obama - they MUST pay more to the federal government.
So, scratch that beach house, that trip to Florida. And you can forget about these people setting up their own retirement. They’ll now have to depend on the federal government giving them back some of the money they paid in taxes - $2 million over 20 years, $3 million in 30.
Mr. President, just fyi, a couple making $250,000 is not, contrary to your opinion, “rich.” But shouldn’t you already know that?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/10/curl-mr-president-do-the-math-250000-per-year-isnt/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/10/curl-mr-president-do-the-math-250000-per-year-isnt/)
It's a good thing my wife ISN'T working; otherwise, we'd be getting ROBBED by Mr. Hope-and-Change and his crew.
Most people don't make 250k a year and only a complete moron would spend their money like that. However, 250k a year doesn't quantify anyone being wealthy...perhaps well off until they lose their job and then they are really screwed.
-
AMEN!!!
Mr. President, do the math: $250,000 per year isn’t rich
By Joe Curl - Washington Times
President Obama made $5.5 million in 2009. His $400,000 salary as president was mere walking-around money. He paid more in taxes - $1.8 million - than 90 percent of Americans earn in 10 years. More than some in a lifetime.
Now it makes sense that he wants to pay more in taxes. So let’s add another $1.2 million to his taxes. Thus, $3 million off to the federal government, leaving him just - $2 million. With that, he could definitely lease a private jet — although even that much money would make buying his own out of the question. (Plus, there’s no need. He’s already got one. It’s called Air Force One.)
But Mr. President, you really have no idea about how the rest of America suffers from taxes. And your definition of what is “rich” is so skewed as to be nonsensical. Let’s work the numbers.
Mr. Obama pledged throughout his campaign that he would not raise taxes on middle-class America by one dime, that he’d only target those absurdly rich people making $250,000 or more. And he’s making good on his pledge - he refuses to negotiate with Republican lawmakers over the debt ceiling unless tax hikes are part of the plan. (Oh, and it’s another plan, like health care, that we’ll have to pass to find out what’s in it - even top congressional reporters still have no idea.)
Right now, a couple making $250,000 pays a whopping 33 percent of that to the feds. That’s right, $83,333. Just to make clear, that means that couple works two months for themselves, then a full month for the government every quarter - four months of income per year straight to the feds.
But still, after paying their taxes, they still have $166,667, nothing to scoff at. Oh wait, forgot state and local taxes. Roughly 6 percent for the state - that’s $15,000. About 3 percent for county tax - $7,500. So they’re down to $144,167.
That’s $12,014 per month - lotta cash. But let’s break that down even further. (Pay special attention to this part, Mr. P.) Let’s give them a nice house - $2,500 a month for the mortgage. $9,514 left. (Don’t worry, they only have the one house - can’t afford a second place.) Let’s give them two teenagers, so $500 for food per week. (If you have teenagers, you’ll know that’s no exaggeration.)
Down to $7,514. Now the nitty-gritty. Roughly $250 a month for heating fuel. Another $150 for electricity. About $125 for cable TV and Internet. Another $125 for car insurance. And a whopping $250 per month to the mobile phone company (again, teenagers!) With gas prices, let’s say $100 a week in fuel for two cars.
That leaves them roughly $6,200 per month after all the bills are paid. But wait, there’s more. They’re self-employed, so they pay their own health care - $1,000 a month. Down to $5,200. And one of those teenagers is in college. (Don’t worry; they couldn’t afford an Ivy League school, just a state school.) Still, with that whopping income, they get no help from the feds or the state, so they pay $2,000 a month to the university.
That means at month’s end, they’ve got just $3,200 left. With that, they could afford a couple weeks at the beach in the summer, maybe a trip to Florida in the winter. But they certainly can’t secure their own future with investments. In fact, they’d hardly be able to afford a string of calamities - a bad roof, a busted furnace, a dead car.
Still, the president thinks these folks are rich. And he wants even more of their money. If he raised the tax rate on the highest incomes to that of President Clinton, the feds would take nearly 40 percent from these folks. That’d take another $1,389 per month from them, leaving $1,811. When that second teenager hits college, they’d have to - yes, you got it - borrow $189 per month to make ends meet. And yeah, forget buying clothes, going to movies, dinners out, etc.
Of course, they could trim back their lifestyle - halve their cable bill, take the kids’ phones, maybe set that thermostat to 68 in the winter. But should they really have to? They’ve worked their whole lives, are in their 50s, and have finally made it - they make a quarter of a million dollars a year. Yes, says President Obama - they MUST pay more to the federal government.
So, scratch that beach house, that trip to Florida. And you can forget about these people setting up their own retirement. They’ll now have to depend on the federal government giving them back some of the money they paid in taxes - $2 million over 20 years, $3 million in 30.
Mr. President, just fyi, a couple making $250,000 is not, contrary to your opinion, “rich.” But shouldn’t you already know that?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/10/curl-mr-president-do-the-math-250000-per-year-isnt/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/10/curl-mr-president-do-the-math-250000-per-year-isnt/)
It's a good thing my wife ISN'T working; otherwise, we'd be getting ROBBED by Mr. Hope-and-Change and his crew.
How about you don`t have children and then re-work your math there MCWAY.
-
How about you take a math class?
Someone who makes 250k a year is not a millionaire.
-
How about you take a math class?
Someone who makes 250k a year is not a millionaire.
Whats your point other than they are not making one million dollars a year. I bet you don`t make anywhere near 250,000 so why are you complaining? ;D
-
Yes having $38K a year left over is far too little to plan a trip or invest with. Oh my what a travesty!
-
Yes having $38K a year left over is far too little to plan a trip or invest with. Oh my what a travesty!
Its not your fucking money! Who the hell are you to decide that?
-
Its not your fucking money! Who the hell are you to decide that?
Exactly, the left seems to think all the money belongs to the government and we should be glad they let us keep what they do. I don't begrudge anyone for being successful/making alot of money, I applaud them. Class warfare, a tactic for the simple minded.
-
Exactly, the left seems to think all the money belongs to the government and we should be glad they let us keep what they do. I don't begrudge anyone for being successful/making alot of money, I applaud them. Class warfare, a tactic for the simple minded.
Communist playbook.
-
How about you don`t have children and then re-work your math there MCWAY.
Too late!! Besides, I got my education and my job, so that I COULD support a family. And, I can do fairly easily, provided tax-sucking leeches like YOU that are in Washington, keep their grubby paws at bay.
Maybe I want to save up my $$$ so that my kids can be trust fund babies......LIKE YOU!!!
-
Its not your fucking money! Who the hell are you to decide that?
I couldn't have said it much better. What we have is a bunch of folks, who have this mooching, covetous mindset that they have the "right" to someone else's money. Obama feeds this foolishness, which is why he's pushing these tax hikes.
Yet, neither he nor his wife, nor the lion's share of the members of his party have coughed up ONE THIN DIME extra, to engage in this so-called "shared sacrifice". And, it's always somebody (or something) else's fault.
Last month, it was ATM machines; this month, it's corporate jets; next month, it'll be toaster ovens.
-
REVIEW & OUTLOOK JULY 11, 2011 Taxes Upon Taxes Upon . . .
Obama wants $1 trillion in taxes on top of what he's already signed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576438130028027412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#printMode
So the fondest Washington hopes for a grand debt-limit deal have broken down over taxes. House Speaker John Boehner said late Saturday that he couldn't move ahead with a $4 trillion deal because President Obama was insisting on a $1 trillion tax increase, and the White House quickly denounced House Republicans for scuttling debt reduction and preventing "the very wealthiest and special interests from paying their fair share."
How dare Republicans not agree to break their campaign promises and raise taxes when the jobless rate is 9.2% and President Obama's economic recovery is in jeopardy?
This content can not be displayed because your browser does not support the Adobe Flash player required to view it.
We think Mr. Boehner is making the sensible choice. No one wants to reform the tax code more than we do, but passing a $1 trillion tax increase first on the promise of tax reform later is a political trap. If the President were really sincere about reform and a willingness to keep the top tax rate at or below 35%, he'd negotiate that at the same time he does a debt deal. Mr. Boehner will have a hard enough time getting any debt-limit increase through the House, much less one that raises tax rates.
Keep in mind that Mr. Obama has already signed the largest tax increase since 1993. While everyone focuses on the Bush tax rates that expire after 2012, other tax increases are already set to hit the economy thanks to the 2010 Affordable Care Act. As a refresher, here's a non-exhaustive list of ObamaCare's tax increases:
• Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.
• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare's 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on "the rich." Oh, and these new taxes aren't indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?
• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That's estimated to raise $20 billion.
• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on "branded" drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.
• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.
• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% "excise tax" on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare's original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.
• And don't forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.
There are numerous other new taxes in the bill, all adding up to some $438 billion in new revenue over 10 years. But even that is understated because by 2019 the annual revenue increase is nearly $90 billion, or $900 billion in the 10 years after that. Yet Mr. Obama wants to add another $1 trillion in new taxes on top of this.
The economic ironies are also, well, rich. Mr. Obama is now pushing to reduce the payroll tax by two-percentage points for another year to boost the economy, but he's already built in a big increase in that same payroll tax for 2013. So if a payroll tax cut creates jobs this year, why doesn't a payroll tax increase destroy jobs after 2013?
Mr. Obama is also touting spending cuts he's willing to make in entitlements in return for bigger tax increases, yet the spending increases built into ObamaCare aren't even up for discussion in the debt-limit talks. The Affordable Care Act adds more than 30 million more Americans onto Medicaid's rolls, when that program is already growing by 6.5% this year. So Mr. Obama is willing to cut current entitlements on grounds that they are unaffordable, but he's taken what may be the most expensive entitlement off the table.
We think this was the President's spend-and-tax plan from the very first. Run up spending and debt in the name of stimulus and health-care reform, then count on Wall Street bond holders and the political establishment to browbeat Republicans into paying for it all. He apparently didn't figure on the rise of the tea party, or 1.9% GDP growth and 9.2% unemployment two years after the recession ended.
Last November Republicans won the House and landslide gains in many states in large part because of the deep unpopularity of the stimulus and ObamaCare. Mr. Boehner has a mandate for spending cuts and repealing the Affordable Care Act. If Republicans instead agree to raise taxes in return for future spending cuts that may or may not happen, they will simply be the tax collectors for Mr. Obama's much expanded entitlement society.
-
Its not your fucking money! Who the hell are you to decide that?
You are right. It isn't my money. The government i vote for decides what the taxes shall be.
I agree that $38k a year to spend/save/invest etc is actually a lot of money given a comparison of average annual salary in the United States. That number is $45,018. So if having 84% of the average annual household income (sourced from 2003) left over after all bills and expense are accounted for and being among the top 1.5% in household income doesn't make you wealthy what does?
Statistically speaking they are wealthy.
-
You are right. It isn't my money. The government i vote for decides what the taxes shall be.
I agree that $38k a year to spend/save/invest etc is actually a lot of money given a comparison of average annual salary in the United States. That number is $45,018. So if having 84% of the average annual household income (sourced from 2003) left over after all bills and expense are accounted for and being among the top 1.5% in household income doesn't make you wealthy what does?
Statistically speaking they are wealthy.
Move to cuba commie. Seriously - its greedy, jealous, envious, people like yourself forcing the economy to collapse.
-
Move to cuba commie. Seriously - its greedy, jealous, envious, people like yourself forcing the economy to collapse.
Hahaha uh no. Nothing communist about taxation. It's greed from people like you who benefit from the commons yet don't want to pay anything that bankrupts this country.
-
Hahaha uh no. Nothing communist about taxation. It's greed from people like you who benefit from the commons yet don't want to pay anything that bankrupts this country.
When did he say that he didn't want to pay anything?
The taxes we pay more than cover for public services. What he doesn't want (and what I don't want) is for the government to dig into our bank accounts and take more of our money, because they mismanaged theirs.
-
Hahaha uh no. Nothing communist about taxation. It's greed from people like you who benefit from the commons yet don't want to pay anything that bankrupts this country.
More baseless class warfare BS. If the federal government only did what it was constitutionally mandated to do they would have more than enough tax revenue. The problem is they don't, the 16th amendment was ratified in 1913, how exactly did the federal government survive for 137 years before this?
-
Taxes are fine if they are fair, just and spent wisely.
The above is a fantasy land inhabited by unicorns, elves and the ghost of Moosejay. It doesn't matter though, the current budget talks will lead to nothing and even if they did 4 trillion dollars in "savings" over 10 years wouldn't cover the interest payments that will be due let alone balance anything. Even on the low end, let us say 1 trillion in deficit spending p/yr for 10 years = 10 trillion in new debt. 4 Trillion in "savings" over 10 years = 6 trillion in new debt and that ISN'T including interest payments which are currently around 300 billion p/yr. Oh, and the world isn't buying as many Treasuries as in the past plus they are unloading them, so either the Fed prints more money or interest rates go up which would vaporize the banks and the U.S
A simple tax hike would net the U.S. govt. dust and ashes for revenue, not even enough to cover yearly interest payments on existing debt. Just take a look at how much revenue Clintons tax hikes actually raised....it wasn't much at all at about 1% of the total gains in revenue after the hike during his terms. Probably did more harm than good.
But it seems that Obama and the Dem's class warfare wedge is doing just fine if one was to look at the news and this board.
-
Taxes are fine if they are fair, just and spent wisely.
The above is a fantasy land inhabited by unicorns, elves and the ghost of Moosejay. It doesn't matter though, the current budget talks will lead to nothing and even if they did 4 trillion dollars in "savings" over 10 years wouldn't cover the interest payments that will be due let alone balance anything. Even on the low end, let us say 1 trillion in deficit spending p/yr for 10 years = 10 trillion in new debt. 4 Trillion in "savings" over 10 years = 6 trillion in new debt and that ISN'T including interest payments which are currently around 300 billion p/yr. Oh, and the world isn't buying as many Treasuries as in the past plus they are unloading them, so either the Fed prints more money or interest rates go up which would vaporize the banks and the U.S
A simple tax hike would net the U.S. govt. dust and ashes for revenue, not even enough to cover yearly interest payments on existing debt. Just take a look at how much revenue Clintons tax hikes actually raised....it wasn't much at all at about 1% of the total gains in revenue after the hike during his terms. Probably did more harm than good.
But it seems that Obama and the Dem's class warfare wedge is doing just fine if one was to look at the news and this board.
From a blog i read - "Assume a broad Federal Sales Tax of 7 percent applied to the value of all consumption expenditures, which in the United States is about 70 percent of GDP. Also, assume an estimated average price of gasoline per gallon for the U.S. obtained from the Energy Information Administration of $3.84 per gallon and an estimated consumption of 138 billion gallons per year and that these values stay constant. Assume also that expenditures stay as forecast by the Congressional Budget Office and that GDP grows as they have forecast. The results are plotted in Figure 2 and show the gap between revenues and expenditures shrinking with a surplus by 2014 of 134 billion dollars and then surpluses all the way until 2021."
-
From a blog i read - "Assume a broad Federal Sales Tax of 7 percent applied to the value of all consumption expenditures, which in the United States is about 70 percent of GDP. Also, assume an estimated average price of gasoline per gallon for the U.S. obtained from the Energy Information Administration of $3.84 per gallon and an estimated consumption of 138 billion gallons per year and that these values stay constant. Assume also that expenditures stay as forecast by the Congressional Budget Office and that GDP grows as they have forecast. The results are plotted in Figure 2 and show the gap between revenues and expenditures shrinking with a surplus by 2014 of 134 billion dollars and then surpluses all the way until 2021."
Could you provide a link to the blog or at at least post the graphs as well.
I am a proponent of a consumption based tax in this nation as it will encourage savings and conservation. I would agree with it as long as the current tax could is simplified and reformed, tax subsidies cut, loopholes closed, so called "tax expenditures" killed and the base is broadened with overall rates lowered. Heaping yet another tax on top of every other tax would be far to regressive for the middle-class and below.
But, the part of the paragraph that I bolded is the large devil ,with a huge red throbbing boner, in the details. "Assuming", "projections" etc never come true. I would be interested to see the numbers, though.
-
Could you provide a link to the blog or at at least post the graphs as well.
I am a proponent of a consumption based tax in this nation as it will encourage savings and conservation. I would agree with it as long as the current tax could is simplified and reformed, tax subsidies cut, loopholes closed, so called "tax expenditures" killed and the base is broadened with overall rates lowered. Heaping yet another tax on top of every other tax would be far to regressive for the middle-class and below.
But, the part of the paragraph that I bolded is the large devil ,with a huge red throbbing boner, in the details. "Assuming", "projections" etc never come true. I would be interested to see the numbers, though.
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/04/resolving-the-us-fiscal-crisis.html (http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/04/resolving-the-us-fiscal-crisis.html)
-
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/04/resolving-the-us-fiscal-crisis.html (http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/04/resolving-the-us-fiscal-crisis.html)
Thanks. The comments have more depth to them in comparison to the analysis in the actual article.
No spending cuts are mentioned, no entitlement reform is mentioned, no tax reform is mentioned and the basic analysis relies on too many assumptions. In this plan the structural problems the U.S. faces are still there so the problem is simply "papered over" and more money is extracted from the economy and burned up in a very inefficient manner which is what is going on right now.
Again, I'm for a consumption tax under certain conditions, but the dirty, maple syrup guzzling, moose fucking Canadian is a little too naive with his plan.
-
Thanks. The comments have more depth to them in comparison to the analysis in the actual article.
No spending cuts are mentioned, no entitlement reform is mentioned, no tax reform is mentioned and the basic analysis relies on too many assumptions. In this plan the structural problems the U.S. faces are still there so the problem is simply "papered over" and more money is extracted from the economy and burned up in a very inefficient manner which is what is going on right now.
Again, I'm for a consumption tax under certain conditions, but the dirty, maple syrup guzzling, moose fucking Canadian is a little too naive with his plan.
I don't think it was ever meant as a definitive answer to the debt question but more a quick thought provoking look at what a consumption tax could under the right conditions, do.
-
Its not your fucking money! Who the hell are you to decide that?
Bullshit it's not! The typical communist like kcballer will tell you that your BODY belongs to the state. You are nothing more than a piece of property for the government to do what it deems fit with it.
How dare you insinuate that your hard-earned money is yours. The parasites need to feed! More money, more money, MORE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Its not your fucking money! Who the hell are you to decide that?
^^^ This.
-
The President's Excess Income, and Ours
Townhall.com ^ | July 12, 2011 | Mona Charen
It is becoming a verbal tic -- the tendency on the part of the president to tell wealthy Americans ("people like me" he's always careful to add) that they have made more than enough money and will have to cough up more of it for the government. Speaking for himself on July 11, the president offered that he had "hundreds of thousands of dollars that I don't need."
The president is of course welcome to donate as much of his extra money as he likes to the federal treasury. He knows Timothy Geithner personally and can probably get a guarantee that his check will be cashed without delay. And since the president is so ready to impute unpleasant motives (like greed) to those who oppose tax increases, perhaps we should impute some sort of moral failing to him for not having thus far contributed his spare change to the government.
I can think of many excellent reasons to oppose higher taxes that have nothing to do with greed.
The government is a spigot. Just when you think that spending has passed some sort of gasp-inducing peak, it blows right past it. Some of us thought the half-trillion-dollar deficit at the end of the Bush administration was vertigo-inducing. In just the past two years, President Obama and the Democrats have tripled the deficit and added $3 trillion to the national debt. This added spending, 40 percent of which was borrowed, was advertised as required to create thousands of jobs, kick start an economic recovery, promote "green" energy, "save" thousands of jobs that would otherwise have disappeared and provide long-term unemployment insurance for those out of work.
The stimulus bill succeeded only in the last goal. (Slogan suggestion to the Republican 2012 presidential candidate: "If you want an unemployment check, vote for Obama. If you want a job, vote for ___.")
Arguably, raising taxes to cover this incredibly brainless and wasteful splurge encourages irresponsibility on the part of decision makers. A refusal to raise taxes will force office holders to prioritize spending.
The president may be perfectly confident that the best use of his excess cash is to pay more taxes. Those who live in the real world may consider the government hopelessly wasteful and inefficient. If the president really wants to get the most bang for his charity buck, he'd be far better advised to donate to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America or the Wounded Warriors Fund than to the IRS.
Even the spending Democrats consider their greatest achievement, Medicare, is grossly wasted. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Anderson recently summarized his Pacific Research Institute study on the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. It's a familiar Democratic refrain that government spending keeps increasing because it is attempting to keep pace with rising health care costs. But that may be backward. As Anderson shows, the costs of these two flagship federal health programs have grown much faster than other health care costs in America.
Since 1970, "health costs apart from Medicare and Medicaid have grown 41 percent per patient in relation to GDP, while Medicare's and Medicaid's costs have grown 89 percent and 91 percent -- nearly doubling -- as a share of GDP." Anderson mentions one reason for the disparity: "In Medicare, if providers get it right the first time, they get paid once. If it takes them four or five times -- at seniors' inconvenience and sometimes at their peril -- they get paid four or five times as much."
Further, as Merrill Matthews and Mark Litow argue in The Wall Street Journal, Medicare encourages wasteful behavior. Among similarly situated patients, Medicare utilization is 50 percent higher than private insurance coverage. "When people are insulated from the cost of a desirable product ... they use more." And then there is fraud, which according to GAO estimates, cost taxpayers more than $70 billion in 2010 alone.
Every time the president demands higher taxes, he is resisting reform that could transform our government, our economy and our fiscal predicament. Even the faculty club set from whom he takes advice must realize by now that without substantial new growth, the United States is in real trouble. The president himself agreed in 2009 that "you don't raise taxes in a recession."
We are not technically in a recession. But we are in the kind of sluggish economy that the heavy boot of government creates. Resistance to tax hikes is shorthand for "no to all that."
-
The President's Excess Income, and Ours
Townhall.com ^ | July 12, 2011 | Mona Charen
It is becoming a verbal tic -- the tendency on the part of the president to tell wealthy Americans ("people like me" he's always careful to add) that they have made more than enough money and will have to cough up more of it for the government. Speaking for himself on July 11, the president offered that he had "hundreds of thousands of dollars that I don't need."
The president is of course welcome to donate as much of his extra money as he likes to the federal treasury. He knows Timothy Geithner personally and can probably get a guarantee that his check will be cashed without delay. And since the president is so ready to impute unpleasant motives (like greed) to those who oppose tax increases, perhaps we should impute some sort of moral failing to him for not having thus far contributed his spare change to the government.
I can think of many excellent reasons to oppose higher taxes that have nothing to do with greed.
The government is a spigot. Just when you think that spending has passed some sort of gasp-inducing peak, it blows right past it. Some of us thought the half-trillion-dollar deficit at the end of the Bush administration was vertigo-inducing. In just the past two years, President Obama and the Democrats have tripled the deficit and added $3 trillion to the national debt. This added spending, 40 percent of which was borrowed, was advertised as required to create thousands of jobs, kick start an economic recovery, promote "green" energy, "save" thousands of jobs that would otherwise have disappeared and provide long-term unemployment insurance for those out of work.
The stimulus bill succeeded only in the last goal. (Slogan suggestion to the Republican 2012 presidential candidate: "If you want an unemployment check, vote for Obama. If you want a job, vote for ___.")
Arguably, raising taxes to cover this incredibly brainless and wasteful splurge encourages irresponsibility on the part of decision makers. A refusal to raise taxes will force office holders to prioritize spending.
The president may be perfectly confident that the best use of his excess cash is to pay more taxes. Those who live in the real world may consider the government hopelessly wasteful and inefficient. If the president really wants to get the most bang for his charity buck, he'd be far better advised to donate to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America or the Wounded Warriors Fund than to the IRS.
Even the spending Democrats consider their greatest achievement, Medicare, is grossly wasted. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Anderson recently summarized his Pacific Research Institute study on the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. It's a familiar Democratic refrain that government spending keeps increasing because it is attempting to keep pace with rising health care costs. But that may be backward. As Anderson shows, the costs of these two flagship federal health programs have grown much faster than other health care costs in America.
Since 1970, "health costs apart from Medicare and Medicaid have grown 41 percent per patient in relation to GDP, while Medicare's and Medicaid's costs have grown 89 percent and 91 percent -- nearly doubling -- as a share of GDP." Anderson mentions one reason for the disparity: "In Medicare, if providers get it right the first time, they get paid once. If it takes them four or five times -- at seniors' inconvenience and sometimes at their peril -- they get paid four or five times as much."
Further, as Merrill Matthews and Mark Litow argue in The Wall Street Journal, Medicare encourages wasteful behavior. Among similarly situated patients, Medicare utilization is 50 percent higher than private insurance coverage. "When people are insulated from the cost of a desirable product ... they use more." And then there is fraud, which according to GAO estimates, cost taxpayers more than $70 billion in 2010 alone.
Every time the president demands higher taxes, he is resisting reform that could transform our government, our economy and our fiscal predicament. Even the faculty club set from whom he takes advice must realize by now that without substantial new growth, the United States is in real trouble. The president himself agreed in 2009 that "you don't raise taxes in a recession."
We are not technically in a recession. But we are in the kind of sluggish economy that the heavy boot of government creates. Resistance to tax hikes is shorthand for "no to all that."
-
Yawn. Vince - honestly - I really dont give a rats anymore. The 95'ers who keep voting for communists and socialists deserve their misery at this point.