Author Topic: Taxing the rich and what it means for budget revenue  (Read 2460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23492
  • Reputation: +2457/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Taxing the rich and what it means for budget revenue
« on: October 06, 2010, 10:22:09 AM »
SHORT ANSWER: Not a squirt of piss:



Quote
Here is President Obama, talking on September 29 in Richmond, Virginia:

"Now, I'm not a math teacher. But I know a little bit about math. They're proposing about $4 trillion worth of tax cuts. About $700 billion of those tax cuts are for people who typically are millionaires and billionaires, and on average would get $100,000 in tax relief—$700 billion that we don't have, we'd have to borrow in order to provide these tax cuts. And 98 percent of Americans wouldn't see any benefit from it. And keep in mind that because we don't have it, it would actually end up costing more than $700 billion, because we'd end up having—since we're borrowing it, we'd have to pay interest on it. . . So when you add it all up, essentially their proposal would drastically expand the deficit instead of shrinking it."

This is very misleading. Very likely for effect, the president is using aggregate numbers to talk about the tax cuts rather than annual numbers.

According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, extending the tax cuts on top earners would create a budget shortfall of $700 billion over ten years. That’s $70 billion a year. Meanwhile, extending the tax cuts on the middle class would create a budget shortfall of $3,000 billion over ten years.

Now, thinking like a government official, this means that extending the tax cuts would “cost” the government $3.7 trillion over ten years. This sounds like a lot of money, but let’s put it in perspective and look at how much the federal government will be spending over the course of the next ten years.

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/october/taxes-and-presidential-math

Completely repealing the Bush tax cuts on EVERYONE wouldn't even cover the interest on Obama's debt. In fact, it would still leave $800 billion in interest uncovered which is more than the $700 billion Obama wants to claw out of the economy.

And once he did claw it out pf the economy you can bet his $700 billion would never materialize because of lost revenue that money never generates through economic activity.

Ram this chart down the next idiot's throat to claim insignificant penalties for being well-off will somehow cure government seizure of ever-increasing parts of our income to finance co-opting ever-increasing segments of our lives.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40571
  • Reputation: +2224/-127
Re: Taxing the rich and what it means for budget revenue
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2010, 10:43:31 AM »
Obama is just pandering to his base and aiding class warfare.

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23492
  • Reputation: +2457/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Re: Taxing the rich and what it means for budget revenue
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2010, 11:01:49 AM »
Obama is just pandering to his base and aiding class warfare.
Truth: the anti-pander
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."