It does not take a genius to fix the deficit and drastically improve the economy

[Freeper]

ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-29-11 05:43 PM
Original message
It does not take a genius to fix the deficit and drastically improve the economyu
   
Its pretty simple actually. First, repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, then remove the cap on paying into Social Security completely for every one and then use the excess funds that come in to pay for Medicare for everyone. Finally, tax capital gains as regular income and use the money it generates to pay down the debt and provide free education for every citizen from pre-school to the PhD level. Then stand back and watch our economy grow at a rate that would make Brazil blush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1386867

Typical DUmmy economic plan, tax the piss out of the rich.

hifiguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-29-11 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. It IS simple. That is what is so infuriating.
   
If it were me, I would

Reduce "defense" and intelligence budgets by an initial 40-50% (end wars, close overseas bases, abandon imperial dreams, etc)

Reinstate pre-Raygun tax rates and tax capital gains at the same rate as all other forms of income

Lift the FICA cap entirely

Eliminate corporate welfare in all its forms

Reduce corporate tax rates but eliminate all loopholes in their entirety

Boom. Balanced budget and likely a substantial surplus.

I have a better idea, raise taxes on all liberals, people would convert to conservatism over night.

Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-29-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. All the leadership in the world won't change the fact that Republicans control
   
the U.S. House of Representatives. They have told you in no uncertain terms that they want this president to fail and will do everything in their power to have us blame HIM, not THEM!!

They are the ones that could save 0bama. If he would listen to them and start being smart economically he could win reelection.

tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-29-11 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's simple in a perfect world with no Republicans.

Who would you tax then?

girl gone mad (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-29-11 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. The deficit doesn't need to be fixed.
   
Shrinking the deficit can only be accomplished by reducing private sector savings (increasing private sector debt). Is that really smart economics at present?

 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Dear Lurker-Jerk,

Suppose I produce $300,000 a year in goods and services and the tax code breaks out--hypothetically--something like this:

$0 to $20,000  -  0%

$20,001 to $40,000  - 10%

$40,001 to $80,000  - 25%

$80,001 to $250,000  - 45%

$250,001 and above  - 70% (we all know you would prefer 90% but bare with me)

Now, since I make $300,000 I'd be taxed at 70% which means I lose $210,000 reducing my netincome to only $90,000.

If I shot for $250,000 in annual income--FIRST, I just lowered my productivity by one-sixth and anytime productivity drops by 16% the economy contracts by an equal amount--but my tax burden becomes $112,500 leaving me with $137,500 net income. In other words, it's worth more to me personally to produce less for other people.

That means people deprived of my knowledge, skills and products. It also probably means I hire fewer employees, patronize fewer vendors, spending less money when I procure my own life's needs and wants...oh and by the way I'm also paying $97,500 less in taxes.

But that's OK because progressive taxation incentivizes non-production. In fact, once the tax rate creeps north of 50% you're telling me I'm working more for other people than I am myself and my family. Well, guess what: I'm a free bunny and the 13th amendment says you cannot take my labor for free or compel me to work.

Now suppose that 45% was applied flatly to my $300,000 income. That's $135,000 in taxes leaving $165,000 net to me.

$165,000 net is quite a bit more than $90,000 so I might stay on the job. The economy won't shrink and while $135,000 is less than $210,000--which you won't get because I won't work to pay it--it is more than $112,500 by nearly a fifth.

So would you rather grow revenues by 1/5 or shrink the economy by 1/6?

[JohnnyReb]

Discontinue all government freebies and entitlements.....ooops over half our expenses are gone and maybe we could lower taxes.

Like the DUmmies plan....It ain't gonna happen.

[diesel driver]

Dear Lurker-Jerk,

Suppose I produce $300,000 a year in goods and services and the tax code breaks out--hypothetically--something like this:

$0 to $20,000  -  0%

$20,001 to $40,000  - 10%

$40,001 to $80,000  - 25%

$80,001 to $250,000  - 45%

$250,001 and above  - 70% (we all know you would prefer 90% but bare with me)

Now, since I make $300,000 I'd be taxed at 70% which means I lose $210,000 reducing my netincome to only $90,000.

If I shot for $250,000 in annual income--FIRST, I just lowered my productivity by one-sixth and anytime productivity drops by 16% the economy contracts by an equal amount--but my tax burden becomes $112,500 leaving me with $137,500 net income. In other words, it's worth more to me personally to produce less for other people.

That means people deprived of my knowledge, skills and products. It also probably means I hire fewer employees, patronize fewer vendors, spending less money when I procure my own life's needs and wants...oh and by the way I'm also paying $97,500 less in taxes.

But that's OK because progressive taxation incentivizes non-production. In fact, once the tax rate creeps north of 50% you're telling me I'm working more for other people than I am myself and my family. Well, guess what: I'm a free bunny and the 13th amendment says you cannot take my labor for free or compel me to work.

Now suppose that 45% was applied flatly to my $300,000 income. That's $135,000 in taxes leaving $165,000 net to me.

$165,000 net is quite a bit more than $90,000 so I might stay on the job. The economy won't shrink and while $135,000 is less than $210,000--which you won't get because I won't work to pay it--it is more than $112,500 by nearly a fifth.

So would you rather grow revenues by 1/5 or shrink the economy by 1/6?

You lost them at "Dear"...

[GOBUCKS]

Dear Lurker-Jerk,

Suppose I produce $300,000 a year in goods and services and the tax code breaks out--hypothetically--something like this:

$0 to $20,000  -  0%

$20,001 to $40,000  - 10%

$40,001 to $80,000  - 25%

$80,001 to $250,000  - 45%

$250,001 and above  - 70% (we all know you would prefer 90% but bare with me)

Now, since I make $300,000 I'd be taxed at 70% which means I lose $210,000 reducing my netincome to only $90,000.

If I shot for $250,000 in annual income--FIRST, I just lowered my productivity by one-sixth and anytime productivity drops by 16% the economy contracts by an equal amount--but my tax burden becomes $112,500 leaving me with $137,500 net income. In other words, it's worth more to me personally to produce less for other people.

That means people deprived of my knowledge, skills and products. It also probably means I hire fewer employees, patronize fewer vendors, spending less money when I procure my own life's needs and wants...oh and by the way I'm also paying $97,500 less in taxes.

But that's OK because progressive taxation incentivizes non-production. In fact, once the tax rate creeps north of 50% you're telling me I'm working more for other people than I am myself and my family. Well, guess what: I'm a free bunny and the 13th amendment says you cannot take my labor for free or compel me to work.

Now suppose that 45% was applied flatly to my $300,000 income. That's $135,000 in taxes leaving $165,000 net to me.

$165,000 net is quite a bit more than $90,000 so I might stay on the job. The economy won't shrink and while $135,000 is less than $210,000--which you won't get because I won't work to pay it--it is more than $112,500 by nearly a fifth.

So would you rather grow revenues by 1/5 or shrink the economy by 1/6?

Actually, considering these are marginal rates, the burden would be under $100K, I think. That's why, when you do the math for a flat rate tax, the percentage comes out so low.

[I_B_Perky]

Discontinue all government freebies and entitlements.....ooops over half our expenses are gone and maybe we could lower taxes.

Like the DUmmies plan....It ain't gonna happen.

And we have the winnah!!!!

My plan:

Tax welfare, medicaid, etc as income. Tie it to the cap gains tax. I bet the dummies wouldn't be all agog at raising the cap gains tax then. If these idiots would ever save a dollar or two and invest it, then they would see just how unfair it is to be punished by taxing what you had already been taxed on. I see all these stories in the MSM about how Americans don't save. We hades fire!!! It don't pay to save!! The damned federal government makes it that way!!! I think that is by design myself.

I've said it many times... it should hurt to be poor. Basic subsistanence unless you are truly unable to work. Then maybe these idiots will get off their ass and get a job and try to provide for themselves.

C'mon Dummies!! Come over here and explain to me why I should be penalized for saving my money (that I worked for and was taxed originally on BTW) by being taxed out the ass on what I have already earned while you idiots don't pay a damn thing. C'mon geniuses!!! Come over here and enlighten my stupid tea bagger mind!! Come on, you oh so smart people!!!

I'm waiting Dummie cowards.

[Duke Nukum]

I think liberals should be taxed at 100% unless they have jobs or own businesses and then it should jump to 200% unless they are in Congress and then they should be taxed at 500%.

And any the surplus should be returned to Americans who have funded liberal nonsense for far too long except that liberals never produce anything so our only "thank you" would be the starved out liberals.

[true_blood]

girl gone mad (1000+ posts)   Wed Jun-29-11 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. The deficit doesn't need to be fixed.
Shrinking the deficit can only be accomplished by reducing private sector savings (increasing private sector debt). Is that really smart economics at present?

"DUmmie gone mad" needs to know that economics and DUmmies do not mix. Please keep up the comedic factor here girl gone mad.

[jukin]

How do these people figure out the intricacies of the square knot?

Wow.

Just WOW.

[Bodadh]

I don't why they think all that money would go to help people or improve anything. Most of it would just get lost in the huge bureaucratic overhead of the government. And anything left would just go to whom ever the pols want to pander to next.

This is why only people who actually pay taxes should get to vote.

[JohnnyReb]

I don't why they think all that money would go to help people or improve anything. Most of it would just get lost in the huge bureaucratic overhead of the government. And anything left would just go to whom ever the pols want to pander to next.

This is why only people who actually pay taxes should get to vote.

...and why lawyers and people who have only worked a government job shouldn't be allowed to hold public(elected) office.

[Karin]

Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jun-29-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. All the leadership in the world impotent, lamebrained DUmp posts won't change the fact that Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives.

Fixed it, and you're quite right. 

Most of it would just get lost in the huge bureaucratic overhead of the government. And anything left would just go to whom ever the pols want to pander to next.

  Exactly, Bobadh!  This needs to be said more often. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The DUmmies are so ****ing stupid when it comes to taxes and economics.

They have not even the slightest bit of knowledge about how businesses run and are successful.  To them, higher taxes = WINNAH!

[DumbAss Tanker]

DUmmies, if you are going to significantly reduce defense (Which actually includes funding for a tremendous amount of that ol' basic research you claim to love), then also reducing intelligence at the same time is probably the Princess of Bad Ideas.