Basic Math is Racist!

[Soul Crusher]

IRS: Not enough rich to cover the deficit
Daily Mail ^ | 8/5/11 | Don Surber
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/39534




Soak the rich, eh?

They do not have the money.

A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich — 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more — earned a total of $240 billion in 2009.

Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days.

Of course, about a quarter of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So make that 18 days.

Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009.

Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.

They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year.

Barack Obama was the first president to sign a budget with a $1 trillion deficit into law.

In fact, all the taxpayers — including the ones who get a refund check bigger than the withholding taxes they paid — have the money.

From Reuters: “Total adjusted gross income reported on tax returns, measured in 2009 dollars, was $7.626 trillion, down from $8.233 trillion in 2008 and $8.989 trillion in 2007. Total adjusted gross income was up only slightly from the $7.475 trillion reported in 2001, when there were 10 million fewer taxpayers. Adjusted gross income is the amount on the last line of the front page of a Form 1040 tax return.”

Individual tax collections totaled $1,175,422,000,000 in 2009 — or 15.4% of all income.

Doubling federal income taxes for everyone would still leave us $400 billion or so shy of balancing the budget.

We must cut. We cannot afford to buy everything we want.



________________________ _________________


Booom

[Mr. Magoo]

I don't think anyone was saying that only raising taxes would solve the deficit?

[tonymctones]

I don't think anyone was saying that only raising taxes would solve the deficit?

that fact of the matter is it does very little to solve the deficit...

that is why cuts need to be made...

there are plenty of ppl saying they are against funding cuts...

[Mr. Magoo]

that fact of the matter is it does very little to solve the deficit...

that is why cuts need to be made...

there are plenty of ppl saying they are against funding cuts...

do you think we should cut military spending?

[Deicide]

do you think we should cut military spending?

No.

Conservatives think we should spend ourselves into oblvion on foreign wars and occupations, liberals on entitlements and libertarians believe in neither; that is why RP is the best man for the job.

[tonymctones]

do you think we should cut military spending?

I think we should cut the fat from everything including the military and then look at what programs all together need to be cut...

do you think that everybody should pay some form of income tax?

[Mr. Magoo]

I think we should cut the fat from everything including the military and then look at what programs all together need to be cut...

do you think that everybody should pay some form of income tax?

I agree.

I think everyone should pay some form of taxes. If we assume that the implementation of an income tax is a given, then I do think everyone should pay an income tax.

What I disagree with mostly is the wealthy paying a lower share only because of their being wealthy. I don't think it's "punishing" or "lowering incentive for people to better themselves", I think they have benefited most from the society in which they have made their gains so they have a duty to give back. The wealthy should not pay a lower rate than less wealthy because A) They did not fully cause the end result so they cannot be entitled to full benefit and B) They got to that position in society knowing full well that some of their income would be used as a safety net for the rest of society so they cannot claim that the existence of tax on their income is "unfair." This is where I disagree with Libertarians mostly.

Maybe that makes a little sense without being too wordy.

[Straw Man]

The fact is that raising taxes does raise tax revenue

that's why Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton all raised taxes

Lowering taxes means less tax revenue 

That's why the Bush tax cuts added 1 trillion + to the deficit

basic math for any one who isn't an ideologue with their head up their ass

[Soul Crusher]

The fact is that raising taxes does raise tax revenue

that's why Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton all raised taxes

Lowering taxes means less tax revenue 

That's why the Bush tax cuts added 1 trillion + to the deficit

basic math for any one who isn't an ideologue with their head up their ass

No, adding spending increases the deficit. 

YES OR NO - DID THE GOVT TAKE IN MORE REVENUE AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS STRAW - YES OR NO? 

[Straw Man]

No, adding spending increases the deficit. 
YES OR NO - DID THE GOVT TAKE IN MORE REVENUE AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS STRAW - YES OR NO? 

Bush tax cuts did not create an increase in tax revenue

Federal tax revenue tends to grow every year because the economy grows (which is why the deficit under Obama has been exacerbated due to the bad economy - something Repubs pretend not to understand).

Tax revenue would have been even greater during the Bush years WITHOUT the Bush Tax cuts

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

Adding spending will increase the deficit if it's not offset with spending cuts somewhere else or increase in revenue but that

doesn't change the fact that raising tax rates and closing tax loopholes raises revenue

that's why Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton all raised taxes

[Soul Crusher]

Bush tax cuts did not create an increase in tax revenue

Federal tax revenue tends to grow every year because the economy grows (which is why the deficit under Obama has been exacerbated due to the bad economy - something Repubs pretend not to understand).

Tax revenue would have been even greater during the Bush years WITHOUT the Bush Tax cuts

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

Adding spending will increase the deficit if it's not offset with spending cuts somewhere else or increase in revenue but that

doesn't change the fact that raising tax rates and closing tax loopholes raises revenue

that's why Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton all raised taxes

That is a guess moron.


YES OR NO - DID FEDERAL TAX REVENUE INCREASE AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS



YES



OR



NO



? ? ? ? 

[Straw Man]

That is a guess moron.


YES OR NO - DID FEDERAL TAX REVENUE INCREASE AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS



YES



OR



NO



? ? ? ? 

I know you're a certified idiot but I assumed you could read

I answered your question in my first sentence of my response

Now apologize for your own carelessness (or is it stupidity) or don't expect me to answer any more of your questions

Bush tax cuts did not create an increase in tax revenue
Federal tax revenue tends to grow every year because the economy grows (which is why the deficit under Obama has been exacerbated due to the bad economy - something Repubs pretend not to understand).

Tax revenue would have been even greater during the Bush years WITHOUT the Bush Tax cuts

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

Adding spending will increase the deficit if it's not offset with spending cuts somewhere else or increase in revenue but that

doesn't change the fact that raising tax rates and closing tax loopholes raises revenue

that's why Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton all raised taxes

[Soul Crusher]

LMAO! 

The economy is not growing under Obama because his policies are a fucking disgrace and a disaster.   

there is no growth due to his communist bullshit and inept bs, which sadly your stupid ass is too stubborn to realize. 

[Straw Man]

LMAO! 

The economy is not growing under Obama because his policies are a fucking disgrace and a disaster.    

there is no growth due to his communist bullshit and inept bs, which sadly your stupid ass is too stubborn to realize. 

it's not growing for the same reason it's not growing in the UK.

you can't get out of a recession with austerity

We've known that since the 1930's but current day Repubs don't give a shit and Tea Baggers are too fucking stupid to even understand how the ecomomy works.

Although one teabagger seems to understand how spending can stimulate the economy but he seems to think it only works if the $$$'s are spent on the military.   See if you can guess which Teabagger said this:

If we decided to build a couple of new carriers, thousands of workers would be hired for the shipyards. Thousands of employees would be hired for the steel mills that would provide the steel for the hull and various sub contractors would hire thousands. Do you know what that means? It means they would receive paychecks and go out and spend that money. That would help a recovery. That is a shovel ready project!

Increasing spending for the military does a couple of things. It not only not only stimulates the economy, it protects our nation.

[Soul Crusher]

it's not growing for the same reason it's not growing in the UK.

you can't get out of a recession with austerity

We've known that since the 1930's but current day Repubs don't give a shit and Tea Baggers are too fucking stupid to even understand how the ecomomy works.

Although one teabagger seems to understand how spending can stimulate the economy but he seems to think it only works if the $$$'s are spent on the military.   See if you can guess which Teabagger said this:

STRAW - WHERE DOES MONEY COME FROM? 

[Straw Man]

STRAW - WHERE DOES MONEY COME FROM? 

no more answers until you apologize for your stupidity from a few posts earlier

[Soul Crusher]

no more answers until you apologize for your stupidity from a few posts earlier

Bro - i have been dead right from Day 1.   your record is utter shit.   

[Straw Man]

Bro - i have been dead right from Day 1.   your record is utter shit. 

LoL - ok man.  Whatever you need to do to feel better about yourself

Last thing we need is for you to snap like your buddy in Norway.

Did you read any of his rants about cultural marxist and other shit.

Sounded a lot like any one of your 50,000+ posts

[Soul Crusher]

LoL - ok man.  Whatever you need to do to feel better about yourself

Last thing we need is for you to snap like your buddy in Norway.

Did you read any of his rants about cultural marxist and other shit.

Sounded a lot like any one of your 50,000+ posts

And? 

I said the stim bill would fail - CHECK 

I said the economy would get worse and worse with obamanics - CHECK 

I said obamaCare would skyrocket premiuims - CHECK 

I said energy prices would skyrocket under this assholes' agenda - Check 



Bro - not one of your rosey bullshit predictions EVER materialized under obamanomics.  Its a fail.   Get over it.   

[Straw Man]

And? 

I said the stim bill would fail - CHECK 

I said the economy would get worse and worse with obamanics - CHECK 

I said obamaCare would skyrocket premiuims - CHECK 

I said energy prices would skyrocket under this assholes' agenda - Check 

Bro - not one of your rosey bullshit predictions EVER materialized under obamanomics.  Its a fail.   Get over it.   

LOL - you're on a roll today.

You never proved cause and effect for anything you've posted but I'm more interested  in what you say are my "rosy" predictions.

the only one I can recally making was that the stimulus was too small (and as of early August The Economist agreed)

I also said Frand Dodd was a give away to the banks and would only make things worse for the consumer to the benefit of the banks)

I've also said many times that the credit and RE market are still fucked up and until we can find a way to fix that we'll continue to have problems

Now -what were my "rosy" predictions and dont' forget to show your sources

[Soul Crusher]

LOL - you're on a roll today.

You never proved cause and effect for anything you've posted but I'm more interested  in what you say are my "rosy" predictions.

the only one I can recally making was that the stimulus was too small (and as of early August The Economist agreed)

I also said Frand Dodd was a give away to the banks and would only make things worse for the consumer to the benefit of the banks)

I've also said many times that the credit and RE market are still fucked up and until we can find a way to fix that we'll continue to have problems

Now -what were my "rosy" predictions and dont' forget to show your sources

How big should the stim bill have been? 

[Straw Man]

How big should the stim bill have been? 

pay attention

I told you no more answers to your questions until you apologize for being moron (scroll up)

[Soul Crusher]

pay attention

I told you no more answers to your questions until you apologize for being moron (scroll up)

No - I have always attacked bush for his spending madness, which has added to the deficit.  I never think taxes are too low - the issue is spending, not taxes.  We pay enough already. 

Again now - how big should the stim bill have been? 

Krugman at first seemed to be ok with a 600 billion plan, so tell me, how much more than 860 Billion should it have been? 

[tonymctones]

I agree.

I think everyone should pay some form of taxes. If we assume that the implementation of an income tax is a given, then I do think everyone should pay an income tax.

What I disagree with mostly is the wealthy paying a lower share only because of their being wealthy. I don't think it's "punishing" or "lowering incentive for people to better themselves", I think they have benefited most from the society in which they have made their gains so they have a duty to give back. The wealthy should not pay a lower rate than less wealthy because A) They did not fully cause the end result so they cannot be entitled to full benefit and B) They got to that position in society knowing full well that some of their income would be used as a safety net for the rest of society so they cannot claim that the existence of tax on their income is "unfair." This is where I disagree with Libertarians mostly.

Maybe that makes a little sense without being too wordy.

first they pay a much higher % than most already, as a matter of fact paying $1 means you pay more than 51% of ppl in this country...

as for your philisophical point of view, I disagree with that mostly...I agree they should pay a higher right as they do bring in more money but not until everyone has skin in the game and pays in...ppl will always be willing to raise income tax IF THEY DONT HAVE TO PAY ANY!!!!!

without them the end result wouldnt have existed so yes they are entitled to a much bigger chunk of that than anyone else. Also they employed ppl, ppl that likely arent paying into the same system...

this is my problem with idiots(not you) that whine and bitch about fairness and then defend the fact that half of the eligible tax payers dont pay any income tax...

do ppl really believe thats fair?

[Deicide]

I agree.

I think everyone should pay some form of taxes. If we assume that the implementation of an income tax is a given, then I do think everyone should pay an income tax.

What I disagree with mostly is the wealthy paying a lower share only because of their being wealthy. I don't think it's "punishing" or "lowering incentive for people to better themselves", I think they have benefited most from the society in which they have made their gains so they have a duty to give back. The wealthy should not pay a lower rate than less wealthy because A) They did not fully cause the end result so they cannot be entitled to full benefit and B) They got to that position in society knowing full well that some of their income would be used as a safety net for the rest of society so they cannot claim that the existence of tax on their income is "unfair." This is where I disagree with Libertarians mostly.

Maybe that makes a little sense without being too wordy.

Life is not fair but that does not mean the government can attempt (and I stress the word attempt) to create 'equality' by wealth redistribution. In a moral society, everything should be based on voluntarism, never force. Wealth confiscation and redistribution is a use of force. No one has an inherent 'duty' to society. If you want to give to society, do so, but don't force others who do not wish to. The income tax is horrific because it literally implies that what you earn is not yours and that by whatever arbitrary measure it deems, the government can take your hard earned money. One day is it 10%, the next 30% and it might as well be 90% because if you consent to the legitimacy of an income tax then you consent to the government's absolute control over your labour and personal gain. Horribly immoral.