TakeYouToTasker Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 http://portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5e90efa5-355b-4cd2-8908-42c510de959f Portman: CBO Tears Down Yet Another Of President Obama's Straw Men Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) today released the following statement on President Barack Obama’s call for increased taxes on America’s small businesses: “While President Obama calls for higher taxes on jobs creators, two new government reports undercut his class warfare argument and the basis for calls for higher taxes. While I doubt these new studies will cause President Obama to change his tune, because too often, with this President, politics trumps good policy, yet another of his straw men has fallen flat. As the nation careens toward a fiscal cliff, real leadership, not more rhetoric and finger pointing, is necessary to reform our tax code and address Washington’s out of control spending.” Analysis of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) final report on what caused the January 2001 projection of a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus to turn into an actual $6.1 trillion deficit over that 10-year period shows that: The tax policies enacted a decade ago are responsible for just 16 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit. Furthermore, given that only about one-fourth of the tax cuts went to upper-income earners, just 1/25th of the decline from surpluses to deficits resulted from upper-income tax cuts. (NOTE: Given that CBO does not take into account any of the positive impact of tax cuts on investment, savings and economic growth, the percentage was actually even smaller than the 1/25th estimate) The CBO report has shown that new spending and net interest were three times as responsible for the deficits as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts – and 12 times as responsible as the upper-income portion of the tax cuts. In a second report, the CBO said that in both 2008 and 2009, the highest-earning 20 percent of taxpayers paid 94 percent of the total income tax burden – up from 86 percent in 2007, and 81 percent before the 2001 tax cuts. In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called “Bush tax cuts.”
KD in CA Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 But....but....but....they're still rich! What can we do about that?!?
Dante Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 http://portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5e90efa5-355b-4cd2-8908-42c510de959f Fairness.
Jauronimo Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) But the 50% who aren't paying any taxes all agree that 94% just isn't enough. Forward! Edited July 12, 2012 by Jauronimo
/dev/null Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Why aren't those greedy fat cats paying the other 6%? /OWS
Koko78 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 The rich need to pay their fair share, of which 94% clearly isn't enough. It's the right thing to do.
erynthered Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 It'll be fun to watch the spin on this one tonight. The top 20% should be saying "We Want the other 80% to pay THEIR fair share"
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 12, 2012 Author Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Really, this is very straight forward for anyone who understands the most basic math: The United States Government does not have, nor has it ever had, a revenue problem. The United States Government has a spending problem. I'll break it down for you. - The federal government collected over $11,000.00 in tax revenue per citizen over the age of 18 in the year 2010 - The federal government spent over $18,000.00 per citizen over the age of 18 (and that is accepting official figures, which tend to understate spending) - The median income for citizens over the age of 18 in the year 2010 was $25,149.00 What does this mean? It means that the federal government is spending more than 70% of everything it's citizens earn. Can a nation sustain itself under this kind of spending burden? Can it's citizens? (The information can be sourced to the US Treasury Dept and the CBO, the idea can be sourced to my friend Taly) Edited July 12, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Really, this is very straight forward for anyone who understands the most basic math: The United States Government does not have, nor has it ever had, a revenue problem. The United States Government has a spending problem. I'll break it down for you. - The federal government collected over $11,000.00 in tax revenue per citizen over the age of 18 in the year 2010 - The federal government spent over $18,000.00 per citizen over the age of 18 (and that is accepting official figures, which tend to understate spending) - The median income for citizens over the age of 18 in the year 2010 was $25,149.00 What does this mean? It means that the federal government is spending more than 70% of everything it's citizens earn. Can a nation sustain itself under this kind of spending burden? Can it's citizens? (The information can be sourced to the US Treasury Dept and the CBO, the idea can be sourced to my friend Taly) <<tweet!!!>> Mathematical foul. Using a median in place of a mean. 5 year penalty, repeat the post.
/dev/null Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 <<tweet!!!>> Mathematical foul. Using a median in place of a mean. 3.5 year penalty, repeat the post. Corrected
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 12, 2012 Author Posted July 12, 2012 I'm sorry, you are correct. It was a transcription error. That is the mean income. The Median income was $26,663.
Jauronimo Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I'm sorry, you are correct. It was a transcription error. That is the mean income. The Median income was $26,663. Move to strike the post from the record and motion to try Tasker for thought crimes! We were never at war with East Asia. East Asia is our ally. We were always at war with Wall Street.
Park Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 That's how a progressive tax system is suppose to work, morons! The top 1% owns 40% of everything, they should pay 40% of the taxes, and the top 20% probably does own about 95% of the wealth, so I do not see the problem here
meazza Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 That's how a progressive tax system is suppose to work, morons! The top 1% owns 40% of everything, they should pay 40% of the taxes, and the top 20% probably does own about 95% of the wealth, so I do not see the problem here Ok Dave.
3rdnlng Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 That's how a progressive tax system is suppose to work, morons! The top 1% owns 40% of everything, they should pay 40% of the taxes, and the top 20% probably does own about 95% of the wealth, so I do not see the problem here Let me get this straight. You're saying that the bottom 80% should pay 5-6% of the taxes?
Park Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Let me get this straight. You're saying that the bottom 80% should pay 5-6% of the taxes? Not exactly sure how much, but that the super wealthy pay a huge percentage bothers me not at all
GG Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 That's how a progressive tax system is suppose to work, morons! The top 1% owns 40% of everything, they should pay 40% of the taxes, and the top 20% probably does own about 95% of the wealth, so I do not see the problem here Income=net worth?
/dev/null Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 That's how a progressive tax system is suppose to work, morons! The top 1% owns 40% of everything, they should pay 40% of the taxes, and the top 20% probably does own about 95% of the wealth, so I do not see the problem here So by your logic above, you're saying the the rich are already paying their fair share?
3rdnlng Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 So by your logic above, you're saying the the rich are already paying their fair share? Thanks, Dev. I was working up to getting him to agree that the Bush Tax Cuts should stay in their entirety.
Recommended Posts