Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: More Revenues or Less Spending?

  1. #1

    More Revenues or Less Spending?

    Barack Obama had recently gone on tour touting his stimulus plan which would give a temporary payroll tax holiday paid for by a new Millionaire tax. He has also said that the reason our deficits are so large is because rich folks need to pay their fair share.

    Lets examine the numbers for a moment. Obama's millionaire tax on job creators would generate approximately 30Billion per year. To put that in to perspective lets look at 2011 budget. The deficit in 2011 was approximately 1.4 trillion. The yearly interest expense on just the 1.4 trillion that Obama borrowed, at current artificially reduced interest rates will be (assuming a mix of selling 10 yr and 30yr bond) would be 2.5% of 1.4 trillion. That dollar amount is approximately 40 billion.

    So essentially Barack Obama's brilliant millionaires tax would cover 90% of the cost of the interest on the deficit loans taken in 2011. If we total up the Obama Presidency and the 4 trillion of debt that they added, we would need to raise taxes by approximately 100billion. That just covers the debt from the past three years.

    If we forget about the millionaire tax hike and say lets cancel the Bush tax cuts completely and revert to the previous system that would raise a total of approximately 200billion per year. The 200 billion will cover the interest on the debt acquired over the past 6 years going to when the Democrats gained control of congress in 2006 and adding in the estimated deficit for 2012 of 1 trillion. The total debt accumulated between 2006 and the end of 2012 is approximately 7 trillion. Cancelling the bush tax cut completely will generate enough revenue to cover the interest expense alone.

    We have some smart folks here. Lets say we go with the Democrats solution for the budget woes and cancel the Bush Tax Cuts for the middle class, and we were able to pay the interest expense on the debt that Obama and congressional Democrats ran up this past 5 years, what would you do to cover the current and future deficits including 50 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,028
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4322318]Obama's millionaire tax on job creators[/QUOTE]


    [IMG]http://www.zeibiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/paris-hilton21.jpg[/IMG]

    Thanks for sticking up for me, Chiefy.

    But I'm a blowjob creator...not a job creator.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4322350][IMG]http://www.zeibiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/paris-hilton21.jpg[/IMG]

    Thanks for sticking up for me, Chiefy.

    But I'm a blowjob creator...not a job creator.[/QUOTE]

    If you are going to post pictures of Paris Hilton, please include a link to the video.

  4. #4
    I have to +1 PK again here.

    I do not accept as truth the direct equivalence of "Millionaires" and "Job Creators" so popular with the (R) folks.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4322354]I have to +1 PK again here.

    I do not accept as truth the direct equivalence of "Millionaires" and "Job Creators" so popular with the (R) folks.[/QUOTE]

    Can we go back to the substance of the OP! Everyone here with a well paying job works for a 1percenter. Its a fact. Do all rich folks run companies? No. Are all medium to large companies owned by rich people? YES. Either way that isn't the point. The 30-40 billion they could raise from the rich barely covers the interest from THIS YEARS DEFICIT!!!

  6. #6
    it's not an either/or situation

    it's both

    taxes need to go up, and spending needs to be cut. both of these things have to happen. one or the other won't make a dent in the shortfall.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4322366]Everyone here with a well paying job works for a 1percenter. Its a fact.[/quote]

    People who work for the Government don;t work for a 1%. They work for everyone.

    People who work for a Corporation do not neccessarily work for a 1%. They work for all shareholders, 1%, 99% and everyone in between.

    [QUOTE]Do all rich folks run companies? No[/QUOTE]

    So you agree then that "millionaire" does not equate to "job creator".

    [QUOTE]Are all medium to large companies owned by rich people? YES.[/QUOTE]

    No, most are owned by shareholders, who reside in all strata of weath.

    [QUOTE]Either way that isn't the point. [/QUOTE]

    ok.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4322380]it's not an either/or situation

    it's both

    taxes need to go up, and spending needs to be cut. both of these things have to happen. one or the other won't make a dent in the shortfall.[/QUOTE]

    Cut government by 1/5 across the board, defined contribution plans to replace bloated pensions.

    Problem solved.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4322396]People who work for the Government don;t work for a 1%. They work for everyone.

    People who work for a Corporation do not neccessarily work for a 1%. They work for all shareholders, 1%, 99% and everyone in between.



    So you agree then that "millionaire" does not equate to "job creator".



    No, most are owned by shareholders, who reside in all strata of weath.



    ok.[/QUOTE]

    Depends on your definition of Job creator. In general of course not all Millionaires are job creators. But most job creators are wealthy. Even Paris Hilton creates jobs in a way. I'm sure she employs full time hair and makeup people. She sells a perfume line that needs to be manufactured. Etc. If we are going to be literal about it then yes most rich folks create jobs. Maids, butlers, yacht captains, etc.

    Again this is not the point. I don't think that taxing Paris Hilton a bit more will hinder her need to spend. I'm also not against the concept of a millionaire surcharge tax. The concept would be ok in the context of the larger need for real and dramatic spending reform. I have said this many times here. It's not about taxing millionaires its about biting the hand that feeds us. If you take too much there is a level where it will hinder job creation thereby reducing revenue on a net basis. It's impossible to know exactly where the tipping point is.

    Lets look at both sides of the coin for a moment. Nancy Pelosi, the defacto leader of the Democratic party (almost all of Obama's supposed signature legislation was drafted by Pelosi) has stated that "entitlement reform is off the table". Republicans have stated that "tax hikes are off the table". The parties have drawn lines in the sand. The reality of the situation is that compromise is required to get things done and both parties know it. Republicans know that tax hikes cant begin to touch the deficits. Democrats pretend that taxing the rich is the solution. That is reality. As a deal maker I know that the only way to drag the Democrats along to fix the country's structural debt problem is to throw them the red meat of additional revenue from the wealthy so be it. As long as the additional revenue is below the aforementioned tipping point. The main obstacle is that the leadership of the Democratic party (Pelosi, Reid, Obama) does not acknowledge that there is a real spending problem. Therefore it is impossible to engage in a legitimate debate.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4322425]Cut government by 1/5 across the board, [B]defined contribution plans to replace bloated pensions[/B].

    Problem solved.[/QUOTE]

    CR2342 just spit his coffee all over his computer screen!

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4322425]Cut government by 1/5 across the board, defined contribution plans to replace bloated pensions.

    Problem solved.[/QUOTE]

    not really

    the annual shortfall between spending 3.6T and revenue 2.2T is 1.4T

    you want to decrease spending 20%. that brings the spending down to about 2.9T give or take. You are still roughly 700 billion dollars short.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4322485]Depends on your definition of Job creator. In general of course not all Millionaires are job creators. But most job creators are wealthy. Even Paris Hilton creates jobs in a way. I'm sure she employs full time hair and makeup people. She sells a perfume line that needs to be manufactured. Etc. If we are going to be literal about it then yes most rich folks create jobs. Maids, butlers, yacht captains, etc.

    Again this is not the point. I don't think that taxing Paris Hilton a bit more will hinder her need to spend. I'm also not against the concept of a millionaire surcharge tax. The concept would be ok in the context of the larger need for real and dramatic spending reform. I have said this many times here. It's not about taxing millionaires its about biting the hand that feeds us. If you take too much there is a level where it will hinder job creation thereby reducing revenue on a net basis. It's impossible to know exactly where the tipping point is.

    Lets look at both sides of the coin for a moment. Nancy Pelosi, the defacto leader of the Democratic party (almost all of Obama's supposed signature legislation was drafted by Pelosi) has stated that "entitlement reform is off the table". Republicans have stated that "tax hikes are off the table". The parties have drawn lines in the sand. The reality of the situation is that compromise is required to get things done and both parties know it. Republicans know that tax hikes cant begin to touch the deficits. Democrats pretend that taxing the rich is the solution. That is reality. As a deal maker I know that the only way to drag the Democrats along to fix the country's structural debt problem is to throw them the red meat of additional revenue from the wealthy so be it. As long as the additional revenue is below the aforementioned tipping point. The main obstacle is that the leadership of the Democratic party (Pelosi, Reid, Obama) does not acknowledge that there is a real spending problem. Therefore it is impossible to engage in a legitimate debate.[/QUOTE]

    TLDR: Vote Romney, he Fights For the Millionaires and Establishment Power! He'll cut spending before he raises it again, and I'll support both descions!! Try the Veal Florentine with truffle sauce, I'll be here all week but this great veal won't!!

    ;)

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4322498]TLDR: Vote Romney, he Fights For the Millionaires and Establishment Power! He'll cut spending before he raises it again, and I'll support both descions!! Try the Veal Florentine with truffle sauce, I'll be here all week but this great veal won't!!

    ;)[/QUOTE]

    How about this: Vote Romney, He will bring his team of Harvard MBA's business consultants to clean up waste and duplicity in government and save us hundreds of billions without cutting vital services!

    Or this: Vote Romney, he gutted bloated companies and turned them around, now he will do the same in Washington!

    Or this: Vote for Romney: He will bring his love of firing people to the federal bureaucrats!

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4322496]not really

    the annual shortfall between spending 3.6T and revenue 2.2T is 1.4T

    you want to decrease spending 20%. that brings the spending down to about 2.9T give or take. You are still roughly 700 billion dollars short.[/QUOTE]

    Whats 700B amongst friends?;)

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4322515]How about this: Vote Romney, He will bring his team of Harvard MBA's business consultants to clean up waste and duplicity in government and save us hundreds of billions without cutting vital services!

    Or this: Vote Romney, he gutted bloated companies and turned them around, now he will do the same in Washington!

    Or this: Vote for Romney: He will bring his love of firing people to the federal bureaucrats![/QUOTE]

    Or this: He will bring his team of Romneycare to Washington, to "tweak" Obamacare to make it even MORE AWESOMER!!!

    Or this: He'll ignore spending once elected, will serve the establishment, the wealthy and big business interests, and also make sure we're millitarily involved in every sandy ****hole on Planet Earth where one lone voice cries out for "freedom"! Go Team USA!

    Or this: Vote Romney! While he may not agree with you on policy today, wait a while, eventually he will....at least for day or two!

    Or this: Vote Romney! A Republican Liberal is like, totally better than a Democrat Liberal, right? Romney has an (R)! Everyone knows (R) > (D).

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4322540]Or this: He will bring his team of Romneycare to Washington, to "tweak" Obamacare to make it even MORE AWESOMER!!!

    Or this: He'll ignore spending once elected, will serve the establishment, the wealthy and big business interests, and also make sure we're millitarily involved in every sandy ****hole on Planet Earth where one lone voice cries out for "freedom"! Go Team USA!

    Or this: Vote Romney! While he may not agree with you on policy today, wait a while, eventually he will....at least for day or two!

    Or this: Vote Romney! A Republican Liberal is like, totally better than a Democrat Liberal, right? Romney has an (R)! Everyone knows (R) > (D).[/QUOTE]

    I've got one. Vote for Romney! In 2008 he was too conservative to win, in 2012 he is too liberal to win. Oy vey i have a headache from all this flip flopping!

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4322643]Vote for Romney! In 2008 he was too conservative to win[/QUOTE]

    ROFLMAO.

    Too conservative? THAT is why you think he lost?

    BWAAAAA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

    Best one I've heard today, and I've been talking to Bit most of teh day, so thats saying something!

    Lol, lol, lol, lol.....

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4322677]ROFLMAO.

    Too conservative? THAT is why you think he lost?

    BWAAAAA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

    Best one I've heard today, and I've been talking to Bit most of teh day, so thats saying something!

    Lol, lol, lol, lol.....[/QUOTE]

    Romney was considered the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008. The media narrative was that he was too conservative to win in the post Bush election. Bush having been so unpopular at that time. Now the media narrative is that Romney is a liberal. These things seem to shift with the winds. The reality is that according to former GE CEO Jack Welch, Romney is the most qualified individual to run for President in his lifetime. He may not be as ideological as you would like but he is competent and has a wealth of experience and tangible successes both in business and government.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4322528]Whats 700B amongst friends?;)[/QUOTE]

    touche.


    still taxes will go up, no matter who wins in 2012 or what they say on the campaign trail.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4322380]it's not an either/or situation

    it's both

    taxes need to go up, and spending needs to be cut. both of these things have to happen. one or the other won't make a dent in the shortfall.[/QUOTE]

    It's not that "taxes need to go up." That's an extremely simplistic and naive way of putting it. It's that you want to increase tax revenue. The dumb way to do that is to increase the rates. The intelligent way to do it is what Obama's bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles deficit commission suggested to do, which is get rid of loopholes and deductions and lower the rates. You can do that big time with corporations too (in fact, that is extremely needed for a number of reasons). A shame that the current administration ignored that.

    Either way, increasing tax revenue is a very small part of the solution. Maybe 1/8th. The big problem is entitlements, and where they are going. The major one is Medicare, with Medicaid and SS behind. Bill Clinton knows as much as anyone how in trouble this country is if nothing is done about these entitlements, but you have those on the left that are either too cowardly or too stupid to do anything about it, and that has to change. It is absolutely disgraceful that people in office refuse to do anything about these entitlements.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us