This speaks volumes

[Jim in CT]

As I said, let's talk about the issues, not the lunatics on either side.

Liberals like to think we can balance the budget on tax increases. Here is one of my favorite facts that has come up recently.

If we imposed a 100% tax rate on every filer who makes more than $100,000, it wouldn't even balance the budget for this year. Let alone it doesn't address the $14 trillion debt we have now.

Let that sink in...if we leave spending where it is, and impose a 100% tax rate on everyone making over $100,000, our debt would INCREASE...We would just about break even for FY 2012.

We need cuts, massive, massive cuts. The Democrats disagree, which is literally to say they don't believe in mathematics.

And my facts come from the IRS, as has been reported recently in many media outlets...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If we imposed a 100% tax rate on every filer who makes more than $100,000, it wouldn't even balance the budget for this year. Let alone it doesn't address the $14 trillion debt we have now.

Let that sink in...if we leave spending where it is, and impose a 100% tax rate on everyone making over $100,000, our debt would INCREASE...We would just about break even for FY 2012.

The math is much more complicated than your simple examples. When the economy grows, the budget deficit decreases. The Bush tax cuts did not help the economy. Tax revenues decreased, the economy tanked, defense spending exploded. Would you be in favor of a 48% rate like Norway? Maybe on people over 500000? Budgets could be balanced. Balanced budgets help confidence in the economy. The economy grows increasing revenues.

You are missing a huge piece of the economics in your discussion. Those kinds of statements incite people, but they do not represent the realities of our economy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The math is much more complicated than your simple examples. When the economy grows, the budget deficit decreases. The Bush tax cuts did not help the economy. Tax revenues decreased, the economy tanked, defense spending exploded. Would you be in favor of a 48% rate like Norway? Maybe on people over 500000? Budgets could be balanced. Balanced budgets help confidence in the economy. The economy grows increasing revenues.

You are missing a huge piece of the economics in your discussion. Those kinds of statements incite people, but they do not represent the realities of our economy.

"The Bush tax cuts did not help the economy. Tax revenues decreased"

I'm pretty sure that tax revenues increased for the first few years after the Bush tax cuts, until the economy imploded?

This link seems to support my theory, and disprove yours...

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

"Would you be in favor of a 48% rate like Norway?"

If we absolutely needed it to survive, yes. If we need it to allow cops to continue to retire at age 40, then hell no.

"Balanced budgets help confidence in the economy. The economy grows increasing revenues. "

I agree. BUt we can't balance our particular budget without massive cuts. Do the math, we have $14 trillion in debt, expected to grow by another $10 trillion in 10 years, and that doesn't count the expected shortfall for Social Security and Medicaid. That could be another $60 trillion easy, for a total estimated shortfall of, let's say, $85 trillion. There are 300 million people in this country. To "grow" out of that debt, as you suggest, would mean additional tax revenue of $283,000 per person (I'm a math guy).

I would love to have my income increase to the point where I'm taxed at an additional $1.4 milion for my family of 5. But unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen unless I win Powerball. Is that what the liberals are expecting? That we will all win Powerball? Because that is one of the very few things that would explain how liberals can possibly believe what they claim to believe.

Tell me where I'm wrong, please...And I'm also ignoring the fact that we have to pay interest on our debt, so teh situation is actually much more dire than even I just described...I'm also ignoring that a huge number of "poor" people pay no taxes at all, so that $85 trillion (plus interest) has to be absorbed by far fewer than 300 million people.

"You are missing a huge piece of the economics "

I don't believe so. You are. Because liberals assume that if you raise taxes by X percent, that you'll automatically increase revenue by the same X%. You ignore the de-stimulative effect of raising prices. Conversely, you ignore the stimulative effect of tax cuts (if they are smart tax cuts).

Detbuch, I will try to contain my use of hyperbole.