Rep Tim Scott has run the numbers...
If we tax everyone over 100K income at 100%... We will not even balance THIS year's budget. Much less cover the fast-growing SS, Medicare, medicaid...
Apparently, we'd need to tax EVERYONE, every business, every employed person, at 60+% just to balance THIS year... and next year would have a massive deficit again.
Face facts... Redistribution is a failure. It's time for people to take care of their own lives. Government cannot do it for them.
Hey you Republicans . . . where's your question?
You can not really expect a serious answer to a load of spurious "facts" and speculation with nothing to back them up.
You, the writer of only fiction, complaining I offer no facts?
Comment treated with the contempt it deserves.
Which means you realized you have no intelligent commentary on the matter.
No, it means yet another unbalanced rant that can not be treated to intelligent commentary.
Come on, you accuse me of writing fiction in response to the biggest heap of fiction I've seen in a long time.
Frankly, you're clueless. You have been for as long as i've seen anything written by you. You still are. You have no facts, no knowledge, no understanding. Just go away, for pity's sakes. You couldn't contribute a thing.
Ah, he really loves me!
Whereas you are full of facts and knowledge and understanding.
I've got a better idea, you take your offensive behaviour away, you don't have a good word to say for anybody and your stock response to anybody who disagrees with you is to heap childish insults on them.
Nor do you!
Remember when they had that budget group? Bi-Partisan cutting and saving?
Well--what they came up with JUST matched what we are losing with the Bush-Cuts!
Get rid of those, and we START 700 bil ahead of the game (10yrs [projection)
End the cap on FICA....and you have revenue up the wazooo!
Stop allowing outsourcing of wealth--make them pay taxes here! Close tax loop-holes, end tax expenditures! Do you know, a quatrillionaire can take a mortgage deduction? All Americans are paying $50,000 of his mortgage!Imagine if he has 5 homes!
Waste fraud and abuse in military/private contracting...just to name a few.
We HAVE the money--it's all hoarded at the top!
LOL "ending the cap on FICA" won't do squat.
Again, you have no numbers. None. You cannot raise tax rates and have statically computed revenue increases. Never works. It has NEVER worked.
Again, how do you fund SS ALONE, when there are only 1.4 people working for every person drawing?
Those 400 families who have all the wealth can pay the same percentage of FICA that the rest of us do.....that would just about do it...and I'm not kidding.
They have wealth equal to 120 million of the rest of us....
That is 120 mil people's MORE worth of FICA.....you do the math!
As it is now, they only pay FICA on $103,000.
Imagine if they were paying it on ALL their income???
You know---just like everybody else.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Really, you don't. I have no idea where you came up with this lamebrained nonsense, but it has no factual basis. You need some numbers, and you have to apply them to reality and explain it. You can't, you have no facts.
No, he didn't. His own math contradicts himself.
The math to expose this lie is not hard. We are working in trillions but don't sweat it.
The projected defcit 2011 - 1.65 Trillion (source Wall Street Journal)
Total personal Income US - 12.5 Trillion (source US Department of Labor 2010)
Percent of aggregate income top 5% of personal income. - 21.7% (source - US Census Bureau 2010)
Do the math. The richest 5% of Americans 'earned' 21.7% of the total pie, 12.5 Trillion. That's 2.7 Trillion. The projected deficit is 1.65 trillion, or roughly half of the total income of the richest 5%.
Tonto would say, "Republican speaketh with forked tongue."
No, youi do. They already pay over 50% tax rates when you combine state and federal, etc. Please enlighten us again, this time with truth, not falsehood.
Warren Buffet didn't. he paid at 12%, less than his secretary!
GE didn't. Exxon didn't. I'll BET you most of those 5% didn't either.
And, even if they did...how is it their incomes grew so much, while most people just staggered, or went under?
Could THAT have been gvt policy?
Like Cheney said: "You are our base, and we will support you"....uyup!
GE got billions from the federal government, arranged by Democrats and Obama. Why would you complain about that? Obviously, it was to do what the government wanted them to do. So, why are you now complaining?
BTW, GE is not a person. BTW, you're not doug hughes, either.
GE is too a person, thanks to Citizens United.
Free as a bird to spend all the money they want on another psy-op!
"Poor Poor rich people, always the beat upon, torn down opressed minority".
Minority, yeah....op-pressed? Only their shirts! By their man-servants!
No, GE is not a person. But the people AT GE have the right to speak. As does any person. Either you believe in free speech, or you don't. Which is it?
I believed in Howard Stern's free speech!~ Christian Coalition felt differently.
I believe free speech is not really free--it's bought and paid for, like eveything else. The bigger the "mouth", the more free your speech!
Since Limbutt, Beckles or any of them have never been fined to my knowledge, and they say foul things to rival Stern, and worse!, on a regular basis.
You still haven't answered. Buffet pays at a published FEDERAL tax rate of nearly 50%. As does EVERY rich person. You have yet to explain how you'll get all this money by increasing tax rates.
YOU SAID IN THE OP -
"If we tax everyone over 100K income at 100%... We will not even balance THIS year's budget"
That's a lie. Maybe like a good soldier you are repeating a lie. It's still a lie. The total income of the just the richest 5% covers the deficit almost twice.
Oly has the integrity to admit when he is wrong. He's done it more than once. I respect that.
Do you have any integrity?
I have the highest integrity of anyone here.
Then admit you're wrong, Mr. Integrity. Oly has done it; AnnCee has done it; I have done it; Doug has done it. I'm sure I missed many others who have done it.
I only admit I'm wrong when I am wrong. I'm not wrong. What are you accusing me of being wrong about?
PP - I don't know if you followed Star Trek TNG. Warf said it best (speaking of the Borg who the teabaggers remind me of)
"They have no honor. That is our greatest advantage."
People are catching on to the brutal deceit behind the tea party. The downward trend in approval shows the movement is deflated.
The lies must be exposed. The people who spread the lies must be stripped of credibility. It's a war for the hearts and minds of moderate voters.
LOL, you know, your dishonesty never fails to amaze me. You do it right here, in the open, while screaming I'm lying.
I'm not lying. I merely stated what Rep Tom Scott's conclusions were.
I figured you'd go off on a rant and accuse me of lying. No, really, that's rep tom scott's conclusions. I didn't lie. I accurately stated them.
But it was a nice trap for you. You jumped in, with both feet, as did a whole lot of people. Oh, and you still posted wonky numbers with contradicting math. I'm honest... And that stands. But you can read the post above... and see for yourself... I didn't change it. You are just so blinded by your rage and hate that you can't see truth staring you in the face. Thanks for playing and so clearly demonstrating what and how and who you have made yourself into.
Rep Scott told the lie.
You only repeated it. And you throw sand in the eyes of anyone who looks at real numbers.
Warf got it right.
Why would a person of integrity knowingly repeat someone else's faulty calculations without revealing that they are fully aware it's garbage?
His credibility is already gone, along with his integrity.
The richest 5% have tax rates of over 50%, just under 50 to the federal government alone. They also pay the majority of federal income tax. Please square your numbers with reality.
How can, if their tax rates are 50%, they be expected to pay signfiicantly more?
You use the deficit as your example of the inefficacy of taxation. Yet, you conclude by saying people need to take care of themselves. How is the budget deficit a direct effect on everyday lives? My dad to day does not change with the ebbs and flows of fiscal policy. Opinion aside, your logical methodology is weak. You attack taxation, yet your solution is innocuous and nondescript. What exactly do you mean by "taking care of ourselves?" Pave our own roads? Deliver our own mail?
The amount of our taxes that pay for raods, brudges, etc, is very, very small. Without looking up the exact numbers, it's likely around 10% for the states, and about 2 percent for federal. So, you can't argue that cutting taxes is a threat to roads or mail. They're not the issue, as it concerns spending. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amount to generally less than 10% of the budget each year. Removing them won't make a significant dent in a deficit that's 45% of the total budget.
I didn't use "the deficit as an example of the inefficacy of taxation". I have no idea how you'd come up with that, unless it was some kind of diversionary tactic.
The problem with our budget is just blatant overgrowth of government - which is doing too many things, doing them badly, and spending nearly 80% of it's revenues giving money taken from one person to give to another.
We are not undertaxed in any way. Our government is just overspending. What we the people are willing to pay... Is what the government must be willing to live within. And what our representatives are supposed to budget and then spend... and no more.
The issue is simple, really. And, not hard to fix, if you simply ignore Democrats lies.
"Apparently, we'd need to tax EVERYONE, every business, every employed person, at 60+% just to balance THIS year... and next year would have a massive deficit again." Hypothetical example to demonstrate the inefficacy of taxation
"Face facts... Redistribution is a failure." Your appeal to the preceding point.
I'm not sure how I can make it more clear. It certainly wasn't a diversion tactic; I was just responding to your rhetoric and appealing to rules governing logical syllogisms. Also, Republicans have been every bit the big spender as the Democrats. Look at budgets from the beginning of the Bush presidency until now. Perhaps your argument has less partisan appeal than you think.
I can only assume by "take care of their own lives" that you mean that we should abolish the federal reserve banking cartel, and take control of our own country - rather than be manipulated by Zionist?
Close corporate tax loop-holes, fine those who out-source their money.
Good enought to take from the people here?
You can pay taxes here!
For those of you whose head is not buried like John Holden, you can find the relevant numbers, as it concerns federal budget, the revenues the goverment gets, and what source they come from...
It's easy to find, and if you don't go find it yourself, then it's because you don't want to know the truth.
What IS of relevance is this: If you take all future projected spending by state and federal government, for the next 40 years, and all future projected incomes of Americans (all Americans), the numbers are only a few trillion apart (less than 5 trillion).
In other words, we will have to be taxed... at 100% of our wages, to pay for the things Ralph Deeds, Mighty Mom, Ilovemychris, and all the other hateful ranters demand.
Of course, that's not possible.
Only an idiot, a complete fool, would insist that the present course be maintained. But here they are, demagoguing the issue with fanatical zeal. Why? It's all about keeping power, and nothing else. They claim that taking power and redistribution power away from Washington DC is "fascism" and "tyranny".
Yeah. Nobody is really that stupid people. So, wise up, let them play their mindlessly stupid word games... And ignore them. Demand answers... they ahve none. They don't know the numbers, nor any relevant facts... All they do is mount rhetorical, hate-filled, animosity inducing verbal campaigns against their fellow Americans. That alone is evidence enough they're not worth listening to.
So...the war for States Rights has been won by attrition? In this atmosphere, the south will surely rise again. Hope y'all saved your stars and bars.
Advocating healthcare for all Americans is the epitome of hatred. If so, I'm proud to spew that venom!
Why don't you answer the question that we have been asking repeatedly?
Where were you and all you other "responsible budgetists" when this deficit was being run up with two unfunded wars 2000-2008?
Slanderous slurs! I'll have you know that I'm not a budgetist, and in no way can I be considered responsible!LOL
Consider this. If medicaid and medicare were done away with, and all citizens above a certain income level (Just to be generous, say $50,000 per year) were required to be self insured, then the funds necessary to ensure the remainder (including those who are currently covered by medicare and medicaid would be funded, and two separately funded programs would become one program (easier to manage) Cut out care for non-citizens and we might just be able to do it w/o deficit spending. These are two entitlement programs that have been a constant thorn in the side of the U.S. budget for decades. Consolidation can't be bad. Right now, the wealthiest, the poorest and the most aged or infirm have medical care. The segment of our society which suffers most in this healthcare mess are the lower income working class, who, by the way, perform nearly all of the hard work and labor needed to keep this nation moving. Hell, even the southern slaveholders knew that an unhealthy worker can't work.
I wasn't on Hubpages back then. What IS your point? You really don't have one, this is just nonsense.
Total Revenue $4460 billion
Total deficit $1645 billion
Who has his head in the sand?
Wow, what a load of nonsense. This site has wholly wrong and misleading information.
The ACTUAL federal revenues for 2010 were a little over 2.1 trillion and for 2011, the revenues are expected to be about 2.4 to 2.6 trillion. This is easy to find. the CBO, treasury, etc, all post the numbers. This site has them ALL WRONG. It is fiction.
Yes of course it's wrong, it disagrees with you.
My Gawd. You are clueless beyond belief.
There is a link titled "Budget PRojections" in the right hand column, with the ACTUAL numbers, which totally conflict with whatever crap is on the link you provided.
The U.S. is insolvent buddy, at least as long as it continues on its current path. The real debt of the U.S. including the shadow banking sector and unfunded liabilities including 2 illegal wars is north of 100 trillion. Can't wait to see Boner try to pay that one off.
Insolvent isn't the proper word. Where do you find 100 trillion dollars of liabilities and over what time period?
U.S. debt clock - watch 'er tick while washington fiddles.
INSOLVENT - BANKRUPT - IN DEBT UP TO EYE BALLS - call it what you want.
Oh yeah, watch for debt default in May 2011. Gonna be great fireworks
Well - reading multiple sources and doing maths i get:
4,4 Trillion total revenues (fed, state, local)
2,1 Trillio total deficit,
In my understanding John is quite close.
4,4 Trillion tax revenues is some 30% of the GDP. Lets make it simple and say the total deficit is 15% of the GDP.
To get a balanced budget my simple maths tells me to increase taxes about 15% of the GDP.
You think that is impossible? No Sir, all Scandinavian economies run tax rates between 40 and 50% of GDP, and they apparently do very well.
So of course it is possible to balance the budget. It is only a matter of who is willing to pay the price.
If i were you, i would start wondering where Rep Tim Scott had learned his maths.
We don't want to live in the poverty of Scandanavia, either.
Haha, a good one, poverty in Scandinavia, you must be joking.
I do business with Scandinavian countries (mostly Denmark and Sweden) and i do business with the US. Travel to places quite a lot. What makes me take part in these forum conversations is a little passion for the poverty i start observing in the US.
Americans deserve better, but they definitely don´t deserve maths illiterates like the Rep you quoted.
So, your defense of the nonsense is to: Add all governmental revenues to claim that 4.4 trillion is the federal income. Ignore all state deficits and liabilities and just focus on the federal, and then use those phony numbers to create a false conclusion.
Let's get this straight... here's the TRUTH, which you so fanatically ignore.
Federal deficit: 1.6 est
State deficits and unfunded liabilities 1.0 trillion
Actual GDP (not fictionalized, as in government spending as if it were production) 11 trillion.
Combined state and federal spending as a percentage of GDP, roughly 40 percent.
You made the illogical conclusion that GDP is the total of paychecks, which can simply be directly converted to tax rates to confiscate. It cannot. The GDP is much larger than the total of all payroll. In fact, the total of all payroll is a smallish fraction of GDP.
But, total payroll in the US, meaning the combined paychecks of EVERYONE who gets one.... Is less than half of the GDP. What you have to do, is to explain HOW you get 5.6 trillion dollars out of payroll that's less than half of 14 trillion. Especially when HALF of the paychecks (the bottom half) are not taxed, except for FICA.
Calling named members "hateful ranters" is a personal attack, Wehol! Don't get carried away with your blustering!
The hate filled rantings are also a personal attack, but I don't see you complaining about them. Maybe you just like to have hate filled rants posted...but object to them being objected to.
Hey--AnnCee called me an insect!!! Where was the outrage for moi?
I TOLD her, it's Dragonfly, NOT insect!!
We don't bite, we sting.
You are wrong as usual, Wehol! Referencing members by name and calling them "hateful ranters" is a personal attack. Just ignore my warning if you like, but don't say you weren't warned about it!
Personally, I don't care. But it helps your argument none at all.
Hate-filled rants? Are you talking to yourself? Consider this: The level of military spending now, in 2011, is at the same level, if not greater than the military spending at the height of the cold war. Where is the enemy? The terrorists? The threat that present situation poses does not justify the slice of the budget that the pentagon has always expected. We are closing schools! How are we to be expected to compete in the world markets if our kids don't get the education they need. Our priorities are all screwed up.
Last time I looked the cost of the war in Iraq alone which was a Republican initiative has cost to date 785 Billion and Counting.
There one lot of wasted money. Then the tax cuts to the super rich that was not needed. How many Bentleys can you drive at once?
If you don't want an international discussion, don't discuss it on an international forum.
What business is it of his how much anyone else has? Or anyone, for that matter/
What has that got to do with the cost of war?
Nothing. The comment was about his complaining abuot how many bentleys one drive at one time.
I am seeing a lot of redundancy... It sounded like a rhetorical question, meant to lend a larger perception on wastefulness. It does seem wasteful to have too many cars, but that is a person's own prerogative if they choose so. So, in a way, you are right wehold, it is no ones business what one does with ones money.
That's what I've been saying about my uterus!
We hold these truths? Your truths? You seem awfully defensive...Methinks you doth protest too much! Must be one o' them thar FATCATS.
"What business is it of his how much anyone else has? Or anyone, for that matter/"
Especially the mafia.
"But the people AT GE have the right to speak. As does any person."
Don't see GE on these forums. If they speak they spend millions doing it. Don't think speech is exactly free.
"U.S. debt clock"
Anybody remember the 'Lock Box'. More American parody.
the only coherent answer is Anarchy
Let those who make proper decisions with their property be the ones to retain it!
"Americans deserve better, but they definitely don´t deserve maths illiterates like the Rep you quoted." Americans are deprived ones. Good they got their media to
telling them how great they are. Rate at about with Nigeria on the scale of economic equality.
I'm a little confused by the math being used here. I've tried doing a little research, and here's one quote from another forum that's interesting:
"According to the most recent data (2008) there were 11,967,000 households earning between 100k and 150k , 4,561000 households earning between 150k and 200k, 1,726,000 households earning between 200k and 250k and 2,230,000 households earning more than 250k.
Even if we massively lowball the calculation by assuming that each household earns the bare minimum within their bracket and each already pays the maximum tax possible at such a level, increasing that to 100% would bring in about 2 trillion more."
Perhaps Tim Scott was saying this tax wouldn't pay off the debt as it stands this year, and wasn't referring to stemming the annual growth in the debt?!?! I think even a basic look at the math shows that a huge chunk of the debt would be paid down with this type of tax (not that I'd advocate a tax as severe as this). If Scott is suggesting a tax like this would fail because it wouldn't be able to pay off the debt accumulated over the course of decades in a single year, he's kind of missing the point. Nobody should expect the debt to go away with one simple huge tax increase. It should be lowered over the course of many years through revenue increases and spending decreases.
Another thing about this whole debate: isn't Tim Scott also suggesting that a tax increase is absolutely necessary? If he thinks a 100% tax on the rich won't lower the debt at all, how much can he possibly believe spending decreases on their own can help?
This is off topic, and will probably be duly notice by wehold, but why is it whenever someone presents evidence in the forums, he tells them that they are lying? And then when he makes statements, no one can question it?
It seems unfair for him to hold people at a different level than himself. Wehold, if you are so desperate for truth, then look it up and do some research yourself. Don't expect hubpages to answer all of your questions, exactly as you want to hear them. That is not the function of the forums. The function is to encourage positive feedback and discussion amongst hubbers.
If you believe that these forums will answer all of your questions, then you are only going to cause yourself frustration and misery. That is, unless you enjoy accusing people of lying. If so, that would make you an arrogant bigot, who looks down on others, (and being that way would also make you drastically narrow-minded). Although, I'm not actually saying that you are any of these things, (and they only apply if you like making accusatory statements).
You would do better asking people questions, on the questions board than using the forums. It seems that you are searching for specific answers to your questions, answers that people in the forums can't seem to provide. Also, if you are seeking like-minded people, you will not find that here either. Hubpages is a diverse community of writers and from my experience, no two writers share the same perception.
"unless you enjoy accusing people of lying."
That's my take on it
But, we are at least getting somewhere with him.
modernday got him to say he wanted a 45% reduction in gvt spending.
Now, I'd like to know what percentage he's willing to pay in taxes.
THEN we will be getting to the ideas part!!
Be careful, he may accuse you of lying about him saying that so, I find it best not to quote him in any aspect.
Every time he responds to me, he calls me a liar
I've been blogging since 06, though....and faced some REAL psycho's...so.
You must get a thick skin.
Only one who makes me want to punch him is *&^.
HE is like a viper.
Be careful, you would not want to make any threats to another hubber. This is a thin line, however much I agree with you.
Wow, you are a real veteran of blogging, I am impressed, Thumbs Up!
Only recently have I actually taken to writing online. And yes, I have quickly learned to develop thick skin. Besides, when you get down to the basics, they are only words on a screen.
.face the FACT people: We owe a debt so large that it can NEVER be paid off!
I haven't the slightest idea how this is all gonna resolve itself.
If all nations begin to fail, we'll ALL be relegated to begging for "alms!"...but no one will have any to give!
The next 10 yrs will determine the fate of all of us.
Just my opinion.
Got any better ones?
by American View5 years ago
OK I give up. Armageddon is coming. President makes threats, talks down to Americans, Dems plan has fake cuts and they refuse to look at Repubs offers, Repubs balking at Dems offers saying no raising the taxes. No...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
The jobs report that came out today is dismal.Employers added only 18,000 jobs.Government shed 39,000 jobs.And here's the kicker: "Two years after the recession officially ended, companies are adding fewer workers...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Gee. I've been led to believe it's all Obama's fault.Guess that's simply NOT TRUE!http://youtu.be/LcvLHHMC4iI
by sannyasinman4 years ago
What other places would you recommend in the UK apart from London?
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
The 14th AmendmentSection 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or...
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=240654We need to cut trillions not billions and unless we do we should not raise the debt ceiling! Obama is spending 4 trillion dollars a year even though historically revenues don't...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.