But cutting taxes will raise revenue because revenue raises when you cut taxes!

 

-----signature-----

the source for taxation is tapped. If you took 100% of the income of all individuals making over 250k, all the profits of the Fortune 500 you could mot pay for one year's budget

This is a spending problem. ..

 

-----signature-----

Lemme guess without reading the thread:


Cuts taxes on rich people, cuts benefits for poor people?

This is an economic growth and employment problem.

It is somewhat shocking that 4 years into this recession/stagnation, some people are still unaware of whats going on.

The problem we face right now is getting people back to work. Not our debt level.

The opportunity we have right now is that lenders are PAYING US TO HOLD THEIR MONEY. We should be figuring out how to get the best return on this opportunity.

If your credit card pays you to run a balance for years while giving you projections that they will continue this policy for the next the indefinite future.....it takes a real financial maroon to inflict suffering in order to get rid of your balance.

Spending, tax cuts....it really doesnt matter right now.

If you work at a private company who is being paid to tap the credit market....and your decision makers are scared sheetless of taking out some debt, those decision makers need to be fired as they are idiots.

Its unfortunate that so much of DC is willing to forsake this opportunity in the name of class warfare.

Pretty much.

Our tax rates in this country are pretty much f'd. We need to directly tie capital gains tax rates with that of other income. None of this 15% or 0% bullshit. This is nothing more than free money for those making enough to invest.

If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States this is what you find.

From 1980 until the present (adjusted for inflation):

Those making 10,000 (27,629) a year saw their tax rates drop 8%

Those making 20,000 (55,258) a year saw their tax rates drop 9%

Those making 60,000 (165,774) a year saw their tax rates drop 39%

Those making 100,000 (276,290) a year saw their tax rates drop 34%

Those making 250,000 (690,725) a year saw their tax rates drop a measly 37%

Those with the least, got to keep the least. Those with the most, got to keep the most. How very American. Now it seems again, those who have the least, won't get the least, but will have more taken away while giving more to those who have it. How very American.

Edit: I wanted to put in the inflation adjusted values for 1980 because they were just so unbelievable.

 

-----signature-----

But you raise revenues by lowering taxes! The Austrians said so.

 

-----signature-----

Can someone tell me why this goofball Paul Ryan is considered the right's Budget Messiah? Serious question. I have never even focking heard of this clueless windbag before a couple of years ago and he's suddenly the point man for those who legitimately believe that every tax cut pays for itself.

 

-----signature-----

Stop being a dick.

 

-----signature-----

nobody in this thread so far has the slightest idea about what the Ryan budget entails. And no, reading an Ezra Klein op-ed does not qualify as research.


The main difference between the two proposed budgets is that only Ryan's plan deals with the mathematical and demographic realities of our countries entitlement programs. The second largest difference is that Ryan's plan also addresses the mess of our tax collection system. With absolutely no reforms to the tax system included in Obama's budget, I can only assume he is happy with GE paying nothing in taxes and Buffet paying 14%.


Dem rich folks you hate so much, that pay less than 20% to taxes now, will have to pay 25% under Ryan's plan... but feel free to continue trumpeting the lie about tax cuts for the rich. I guess I should probably be careful labeling people liars, when they likely are just too stupid to understand the concept.

 

-----signature-----

Obama wimped out with his tax changes and pushed them off until later. He is claiming he wants to address both income and corp taxes together. I don't think Paul's budget includes specifics for the tax changes either. There is a clear need to tackle the issue but Paul's outline is comically stupid while Obama's is simply limp wristed.


The medicare reforms in Paul's budget relies on the assumption that private insurance will result in better cost controls which is a rather large assumption given the recent history of the industry which suggests the exact opposite for most issues.

 

-----signature-----