USA needs to raise taxes

[TheSquealer]

"Most people in America understand that, to fix our massive debt-and-deficit problem, we're going to have to raise taxes and cut spending.

Raise taxes AND cut spending. Not one or the other.

But some people insist that the problem can be fixed by just raising taxes or just cutting spending.

Most folks in the latter group gripe about how taxes are already too high. But they aren't.

At least not relative to other countries in the world that are considered first-world countries.

In 2009, total US tax revenue came to just over 20% of GDP.

How did that compare to other countries?

Well, it put us ahead of Chile and Mexico. Check out this chart from the OECD, which includes state and local taxes."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hey-p...#ixzz1eRUOlSss

[stocktrader23]

You run cam studios?

[crockett]

Norquist says taxes are bad.. he is why the Republicans will let this country implode on it's self because they can't get re-elected if they break his pledge. Best thing is he's just a lobbyist, but probably the most powerful Republican in this country.. that of course you never hear about.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...tag=pop.videos

[sperbonzo]

There has been no cut in spending whatsoever. The "cuts" that they talk about are merely a reduction in the amount of increases each year. NOTHING has been cut, and we are spending 40% more than we take in already.



.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

There has been no cut in spending whatsoever. The "cuts" that they talk about are merely a reduction in the amount of increases each year. NOTHING has been cut, and we are spending 40% more than we take in already.
.

A mere detail when we can just print more money.

Geez... its like you don't even understand how things work!

[Wizzo]

Comparing the US economy to many of those countries is like comparing my salary to my 7year old nephew's allowance...

But I think this chart says it all...

[IllTestYourGirls]

Anyone who is calling for raising taxes in the US is calling for more war, more occupation, more invasions, and more death of innocent women and children.

[12clicks]

if the bottom 50% had to pay taxes, we'd see huge cuts in spending.
Thats the dirty little secret the libs can't let happen.
once EVERYONE has skin in the game, no one will be for more spending

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Anyone who is calling for raising taxes in the US is calling for more war, more occupation, more invasions, and more death of innocent women and children.

Sure, because obviously you can't raise the effective tax rate without bombing children. Everyone knows that.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Sure, because obviously you can't raise the effective tax rate without bombing children. Everyone knows that.

Why else would there be a reason to raise taxes? To maintain the same lifestyle we have now. That life style is one of war and occupation. If we were not at war and not occupying there would be no need for any tax increases. Everyone knows that

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

if the bottom 50% had to pay taxes, we'd see huge cuts in spending.
Thats the dirty little secret the libs can't let happen.
once EVERYONE has skin in the game, no one will be for more spending

Funny... since it was Republican Presidents that proposed, signed and expanded these policies that allowed the bottom 50% to no longer pay taxes... Facts don't matter though... everything is the liberals fault.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by crockett

Norquist says taxes are bad.. he is why the Republicans will let this country implode on it's self because they can't get re-elected if they break his pledge. Best thing is he's just a lobbyist, but probably the most powerful Republican in this country.. that of course you never hear about.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...tag=pop.videos

i asked about this guy like 6 months ago, i think even with the same picture

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

if the bottom 50% had to pay taxes, we'd see huge cuts in spending.
Thats the dirty little secret the libs can't let happen.
once EVERYONE has skin in the game, no one will be for more spending

It is the other way around. 50% don't pay taxes, we are 50% the way to the way it should be.

[TheSquealer]

I think we should raise taxes on the generation that put us in this situation. The same 60's hippies that were trying to change the world.. that have been in power for the last 20 years.

Lets start by raising taxes on them AND cutting spending.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Why else would there be a reason to raise taxes? To maintain the same lifestyle we have now. That life style is one of war and occupation. If we were not at war and not occupying there would be no need for any tax increases. Everyone knows that

You are aware of budget deficits and massive debt right? The debt that is near the point that we can't afford interest payments?

Of course we should not have a military budget that's bigger than the next 15 world economies combined. I don't disagree with that.

[Sunny Day]

In 2009, 1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million but paid no federal income tax on it

http://www.truth-out.org/billionaire...ent/1321716065

[raymor]

Somebody is fibbing about 20%, it's about 29%, but no matter. What most in Washington don't talk about is that we could actually eliminate the deficit without raising the tax burden or cutting spending significantly. In fact, we could eventually cut taxes by 15%, increase spending by 15%, and still have a balanced budget.

The dems proposed to increase spending by $700 billion and raise taxes by $400 billion. The republicans want to get things under control by halting the growth in spending, but we don't need to increase the tax burden at all and we could basically leave spending alone.
That's right, no real pain on either side.


Deficits in recent years have been around $300-$500 billion. These last two years it's doubled to about a trillion. Doubling the deficit in two years is ridiculous, of course, so we'll start by going back to 2009 spending levels. That leaves us about say $380 of deficit. About $200 billion of that is wasted on time spent dealing with too many taxes forms and rules. The tax code is over 70,000 pages:



A simple tax code, whether that's the fair tax, the flat tax, or whatever would save about $200 billion just in costs. About 14% of the cost of taxes we pay aren't government revenue, but wasted on running with an overly complex tax system.

By just simplifying the tax system and using 2009 spending levels as our baseline that leaves us with a $180 billion deficit, down from $1,000 billion. The simple tax system, sunroof like the fair tax, does more than just reduce the costs of compliance, though. Eliminating 70,000 pages of loopholes and exceptions for specific friends of politicians means that everybody pays what they are supposed to. With the fair tax, even drug dealers would pay since it's implemented as a sales tax and drug dealers buy stuff. So too people who make tips or buy corporate jets would all pay the simple sales tax. That easily makes up the final $180 billion. Balanced budget by doing nothing but bringing spending to 2009 levels and simplifying the tax code!

The deficit commission tried to have done savings from reducing the complexity of taxes and getting rid of loopholes, but unfortunately they got stuck on the $700 billion increase in deficit spending.

Now I said we could cut taxes, increase spending, and still have a balanced budge

t eventually. The thing is, we spend $450 billion, roughly a third of the entire budget, just paying interest on the debt. It's like if you paid a third of your salary making minimum payments on huge credit card balances. By the budget as outlined above, "extra" money from economic bubbles, etc. can go to debt reduction. As you get rid of debt, that frees up a third of the budget dor tax cuts or anything else we want to do with it.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by nation-x

Funny... since it was Republican Presidents that proposed, signed and expanded these policies that allowed the bottom 50% to no longer pay taxes... Facts don't matter though... everything is the liberals fault.

link?

and please don't waste our time with across the board tax cuts.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Sunny Day

In 2009, 1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million but paid no federal income tax on it

http://www.truth-out.org/billionaire...ent/1321716065

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ies-and-taxes/

Treasury Secretary Geithner yesterday declined to answer a key question about the president?s proposed ?Buffett Rule?: How many millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than middle-income families?
The answer: not that many.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has crunched the numbers and found that Warren Buffett and his secretary are the exception to the rule. For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers.
The key numbers: this year those earning over $1 million will pay, on average, 29.1 percent on federal taxes. Those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent.

[12clicks]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the...remise-flawed/

"""the Associated Press is out with some fact checking on the premise of the so-called “Buffett Rule,” and found no support for the idea that secretaries are paying a higher tax rate than the mega-rich bosses"""

[12clicks]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...res/50480226/1

""" President Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are."""

[crockett]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

There has been no cut in spending whatsoever. The "cuts" that they talk about are merely a reduction in the amount of increases each year. NOTHING has been cut, and we are spending 40% more than we take in already.

.

We are also paying much lower taxes than we ever have, especially the wealthy. Can't expect nothing but cuts states are already on verge of being bankrupt.

[Lucy - CSC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

Maybe if you kept taxes the same and slashed the military budget by 75% and invested that money straight into the economy helping manufacturing grow you wouldnt be in the mess you are?

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by crockett

We are also paying much lower taxes than we ever have, especially the wealthy.

wizzo's chart above disputes your opinion

[bronco67]

It doesn't matter if spending is cut. That's a joke. The government will always abuse and waste your tax dollars.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Lucy - CSC

Maybe if you kept taxes the same and slashed the military budget by 75% and invested that money straight into the economy helping manufacturing grow you wouldnt be in the mess you are?

Fucking IN-SANE....

1 United States 698,105,000,000 4.7%
2 People's Republic of China 114,300,000,000 2.2%
3 France 61,285,000,000 2.5%
4 United Kingdom 57,424,000,000 2.7%
5 Russia 52,586,000,000 4.3%
6 Japan 51,420,000,000 1.0%
7 Germany 46,848,000,000 1.4%

[crockett]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

wizzo's chart above disputes your opinion

That is a spending chart, not a tax chart.

Regan understood that he fucked up when he lowered taxes so much on the wealthy. It's why he ended up raising taxes 11 times over the rest of his presidency.

Even Bush Sr. raised taxes because he knew we were fucked, it's why he lost his bid at a second term.

You really should read this article..

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-rich-20111109

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

link?

and please don't waste our time with across the board tax cuts.

Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Plan of 1969 which, admittedly, was co-authored by Daniel Moynihan (Democrat) - was the first plan that introduced the credit. It was rejected by the Congress.

Proposed by and signed into law by Gerald Ford who proposed it in the State of the Union as a temporary measure - Jan 15, 1975
Made permanent by Congress and Carter after they rejected his temporary proposal and came up with their own which he signed into law.
Expanded by Ronald Reagan
Expanded by George H.W. Bush
Expanded by George W. Bush
Child credit, expanded by George W. Bush

[Lucy - CSC]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Fucking IN-SANE....

It is actually massivily higher than that. Nuclear bombs are paid for by the enviromental budget! The true cost is probably well over $1 trillion. Add to that the yearly theft of over $1 trillion by the US Federal Reserve Bank and there is pretty much nothing left.

Well there is something left it is called a massive debt.

[oscer]

There to much taxes and too much wasting of money already ..

They need to stop blowing the money on stupid stuff that does not involve stabilizing our economy

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by oscer

There to much taxes and too much wasting of money already ..

They need to stop blowing the money on stupid stuff that does not involve stabilizing our economy

Unless the "stupid stuff" is bought from overseas, it's money that went into the US economy. Taxes and cuts are Red Herrings. The problem is neither.

It's the trade deficit. The US like so many countries today imports too much and exports too little. The borrowed money is to keep the people, housed, clothed and fed.

Cut Government spending or raise taxes and lower borrowing. And there's less money circulating. Keep Government spending or taxes as they are and lower borrowing. And there's less money circulating. The US is kept afloat, like a lot of countries, on debt.

[u-Bob]

Higher taxes don't lead to smaller deficits but to even bigger government.

[Vendzilla]

The problem is if you raise taxes, the government will have more money to spend

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by Wizzo

Comparing the US economy to many of those countries is like comparing my salary to my 7year old nephew's allowance...

But I think this chart says it all...

I just looked at this graph again and realized it's wrong. In order for that graph to be true, for example, for 2010 the budget would have to be $5.87 Trillion (40.34% of $14551.8 Trillion) The 2010 budget was actually $3.552 Trillion... which is 24.4% of GDP for 2010.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Higher taxes don't lead to smaller deficits but to even bigger government.

Funny, but in reality, when we had higher taxes we have a lower deficit and lower spending. Where is your proof to back up your claims?

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by nation-x

Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Plan of 1969 which, admittedly, was co-authored by Daniel Moynihan (Democrat) - was the first plan that introduced the credit. It was rejected by the Congress.

Proposed by and signed into law by Gerald Ford who proposed it in the State of the Union as a temporary measure - Jan 15, 1975
Made permanent by Congress and Carter after they rejected his temporary proposal and came up with their own which he signed into law.
Expanded by Ronald Reagan
Expanded by George H.W. Bush
Expanded by George W. Bush
Child credit, expanded by George W. Bush

you're pretending welfare reform was a republican taking people off the tax roles?
ok.......

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by crockett

Funny, but in reality, when we had higher taxes we have a lower deficit and lower spending. Where is your proof to back up your claims?

right here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200
in the fifth column you'll see revenues in constant 2005 dollars.
Over the last decade, we've brought in MORE tax dollars than ever before. so THIS TIME PERIOD RIGHT NOW is when we had the "higher taxes" you're talking about.
and our deficit has never been higher nor our government bigger.



thanks for playing

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by crockett

That is a spending chart, not a tax chart.

Regan understood that he fucked up when he lowered taxes so much on the wealthy. It's why he ended up raising taxes 11 times over the rest of his presidency.

Even Bush Sr. raised taxes because he knew we were fucked, it's why he lost his bid at a second term.

You really should read this article..

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-rich-20111109

son, you don't read entertainment magazines to understand the history you LIVED through.
Reagan tried to starve the beast, problem was, the democrats refused to cut spending.
just like now.

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

you're pretending welfare reform was a republican taking people off the tax roles?
ok.......

The earned income tax credit is the number one reason that 47% of people don't pay income taxes... what part of that did you miss?

[icymelon]

million plus are going to have to pay more in taxes. simple as that. Cute military spending. who are we fighting. They got OBL

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

son, you don't read entertainment magazines to understand the history you LIVED through.
Reagan tried to starve the beast, problem was, the democrats refused to cut spending.
just like now.

Democrats are not refusing to cut spending... that is a flat out LIE. They want to cut spending in different areas than Republicans... like tax expenditures as outlined in Simpson-Bowles. Tax expenditures alone are $1.2 Trillion annually. They also want to cut defense which is at $712 Billion.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

You are aware of budget deficits and massive debt right? The debt that is near the point that we can't afford interest payments?

Of course we should not have a military budget that's bigger than the next 15 world economies combined. I don't disagree with that.

You are aware that if we bring our troops home the economy would boom and tax revenue would increase because of more jobs right?

Again, anyone simply calling for more taxes is a warmonger, because simply bringing our troops, shrinking the size of government, home would solve most of the problem.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

son, you don't read entertainment magazines to understand the history you LIVED through.
Reagan tried to starve the beast, problem was, the democrats refused to cut spending.
just like now.

U'mm the reason you need to read it, is because you remember a fairly land. Even the Republicans involved realized it was a mistake and caused the deficit to grow out of control.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

link?

and please don't waste our time with across the board tax cuts.

Do you approve of a 12-12-12 tax code ?

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by crockett

Funny, but in reality, when we had higher taxes we have a lower deficit and lower spending. Where is your proof to back up your claims?

#eurocrisis

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by crockett

U'mm the reason you need to read it, is because you remember a fairly land. Even the Republicans involved realized it was a mistake and caused the deficit to grow out of control.

incorrect.
spending is our problem, not tax collection.
you obviously didn't bother to look at the chart I showed you or you're just one of these kids who thinks someone else should be paying your share of your responsibility to society as an adult

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by nation-x

Democrats are not refusing to cut spending... that is a flat out LIE. They want to cut spending in different areas than Republicans... like tax expenditures as outlined in Simpson-Bowles. Tax expenditures alone are $1.2 Trillion annually. They also want to cut defense which is at $712 Billion.

please show me a spending cutting plan similar to either the ryan plan or the cut cap and balance act.
I'll wait right here.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

incorrect.
spending is our problem, not tax collection.
you obviously didn't bother to look at the chart I showed you or you're just one of these kids who thinks someone else should be paying your share of your responsibility to society as an adult

You are are obviously someone whom doesn't want to pay your fair share of taxes and will support the irresponsible right wing regardless of what they say or do as long as they claim they will lower your taxes.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by crockett

You are are obviously someone whom doesn't want to pay your fair share of taxes and will support the irresponsible right wing regardless of what they say or do as long as they claim they will lower your taxes.

Do you really think anyone on the hill is responsible? Really?