On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:16:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:33:43 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:10:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on $250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the $250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)


I don't know where this $250k idea came from.
Probably because those who proposed it make less than $250k.
But $160k puts you in the top 5%.
Taxes should come up for everybody.
Even the lowest bracket should get a 1% bump so everybody is in the
game.
Here's all you want know about the possibilities for erasing the debt.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc...TheDeficit.pdf
I didn't bother to look whether this assumes the "Bush tax cuts"
expired. No doubt it also didn't anticipate Obama cutting the SS tax.
The income tax revenue table only gives totals gain from 1% increase for
everybody.
In reality, higher incomes should increase by multiple points to make a
dent as far as revenue.
There are plenty of other revenue enhancers in there.
VAT is a big hitter.
And plenty of spending cuts, which are equally important.
As a % of GDP revenues are historically low, spending high.
So it adds ups to a fracas of special interests and bought pols.
Simpson-Bowles took a balanced approach, and couldn't get the needed 14
of 18 commission vote to bring it to Congress.
Opposition was bipartisan.
Paul Ryan took a partisan approach, and should be spat upon.
It's coming out now how Ryan's plan is pure bull**** and will actually
increase the deficit while stripping the middle class and poor bare.
Wonder where that increased deficit money is going?
Socialism for the wealthy.
Any 2 sensible adults with basic math skills could come up with a
balanced solution that would erase the debt in 10 years or less.
Simpson-Bowles were gentle on both revenues and spending in an attempt
to get 14 of the 18 goofball pols to agree.
Didn't work.
Gentle as they were, they broke too many precious eggs.
I really think this will all come out badly because we have a broken
political system and a country full of spoiled deadbeats.
Rich and poor alike.
BTW, I saw Simpson on Hardball today and he said something about
Medicare that I didn't see in his report.
He basically said the real solution to Medicare was to go after the
doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals that are
raping the government.
Sometimes I don't like Simpson. This time I did.




I'd support $160K and above. I would not support less than about $80K.

Always just a little more than YOU make huh?

Quite a bit less actually. But, you don't want to be reasonable about
taxes. Just raise them. Doesn't matter who suffers.


It should be across the board. Adding a few hundred dollars to
anyone's tax bill is not going to crush the economy.
Just let it reset to the Clinton Era rates. You folks seem to think
times were never better than then. (that was actually more like $2000
for me last year when I compared what I paid to what happened if I ran
my taxes with the 1996 book).
I still would support that rate.
Anything else is short sighted. You keep saying the real problem is 30
years away and that it will take a long time to turn this around but
you always have an excuse why we shouldn't start. That is like the
drug addict who is going to stop tomorrow.

No, it shouldn't. That's just your right-wing nonsense. The middle
class don't need more taxes, at least not right now.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:02:30 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:29:25 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:16:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:33:43 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:10:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on $250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the $250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)


I don't know where this $250k idea came from.
Probably because those who proposed it make less than $250k.
But $160k puts you in the top 5%.
Taxes should come up for everybody.
Even the lowest bracket should get a 1% bump so everybody is in the
game.
Here's all you want know about the possibilities for erasing the debt.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc...TheDeficit.pdf
I didn't bother to look whether this assumes the "Bush tax cuts"
expired. No doubt it also didn't anticipate Obama cutting the SS tax.
The income tax revenue table only gives totals gain from 1% increase for
everybody.
In reality, higher incomes should increase by multiple points to make a
dent as far as revenue.
There are plenty of other revenue enhancers in there.
VAT is a big hitter.
And plenty of spending cuts, which are equally important.
As a % of GDP revenues are historically low, spending high.
So it adds ups to a fracas of special interests and bought pols.
Simpson-Bowles took a balanced approach, and couldn't get the needed 14
of 18 commission vote to bring it to Congress.
Opposition was bipartisan.
Paul Ryan took a partisan approach, and should be spat upon.
It's coming out now how Ryan's plan is pure bull**** and will actually
increase the deficit while stripping the middle class and poor bare.
Wonder where that increased deficit money is going?
Socialism for the wealthy.
Any 2 sensible adults with basic math skills could come up with a
balanced solution that would erase the debt in 10 years or less.
Simpson-Bowles were gentle on both revenues and spending in an attempt
to get 14 of the 18 goofball pols to agree.
Didn't work.
Gentle as they were, they broke too many precious eggs.
I really think this will all come out badly because we have a broken
political system and a country full of spoiled deadbeats.
Rich and poor alike.
BTW, I saw Simpson on Hardball today and he said something about
Medicare that I didn't see in his report.
He basically said the real solution to Medicare was to go after the
doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals that are
raping the government.
Sometimes I don't like Simpson. This time I did.




I'd support $160K and above. I would not support less than about $80K.

Always just a little more than YOU make huh?

Quite a bit less actually. But, you don't want to be reasonable about
taxes. Just raise them. Doesn't matter who suffers.

Was it oppressive when Clinton had the higher rate. You folks keep
saying that was the times of prosperity. I am only agreeing.

Were taxes oppressive during an economic boom? No. Would they be so
now for the middle class which is struggling, yes. I'm glad you're
agreeing.



It should be across the board. Adding a few hundred dollars to
anyone's tax bill is not going to crush the economy.
Just let it reset to the Clinton Era rates. You folks seem to think
times were never better than then. (that was actually more like $2000
for me last year when I compared what I paid to what happened if I ran
my taxes with the 1996 book).
I still would support that rate.
Anything else is short sighted. You keep saying the real problem is 30
years away and that it will take a long time to turn this around but
you always have an excuse why we shouldn't start. That is like the
drug addict who is going to stop tomorrow.

No, it shouldn't. That's just your right-wing nonsense. The middle
class don't need more taxes, at least not right now.


So you don't really want to balance the budget then. Everyone should
pay. 40 million families don't pay a dime now.

No, not everyone NOW. You can claim all you want about families not
paying taxes, that doesn't actually support any reasonable argument
unless you're talking about families making more then $250K. Saying
the same thing over and over doesn't make it a fact.