Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC)
"The worst part of it would be that if you indeed confiscated all the earnings of every single American making $100,000 or more per year... it not plug the ginormous hole left be liberal overspending.."
Scarey and comletely false. BTW, I found the quote online under this title
"Taxing those at $100,000 and up at 100% would not get us out of this year’s deficit"
Which is how weholdthesetruths plugged this story. So it's being actively promoted as a scare tactic. Lets look at the numbers.
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' $2.7 Trillion in 2010. (21.7% of the total personal income, 12.5 Trillion.) The projected deficit is 1.65 trillion, or. roughly half the income of the richest 5%.
This one quote by a minor Chicken Little in the US House of Representatives would be unimportant except that it's typical of a string of lies, distortions and half-truths being pumped out by republicans to panic voters into permanently lower taxes for the rich. Any thinking person can see that lowering taxes can't possibly increase revenue or lower the debt. But that's what's being sold with huge ad campaigns. (Seen the futuristic one where the Chinese discuss the demise of America? Ask yourself - Who PAID for that ad?)
The richest people in America are betting that you are a gullible fool. With outright lies and slick adds they are asking you to commit suicide by election.
Do yourself a favor and check the facts.
Yes, please do. The total taxable income in the US is nowhere near what you state it is.
Both parties use the scare tactic when it suits them. If fact you have done it yourself.
You call yourself "logic, commonsense" and can't point his lack, thereof?
Think about this. The entire federal budget of 3.6 or 3.8 or whatever size it is depending on the hour of whatever day your statistic comes from, is criticized for being ALMOST 25% of GDP. Yet, this brainiac claims that just all our paychecks ALONE add up to 12.6 trillion.
There's not a snowball's chance in the h e double hockeysticks that our combined paychecks are anywhere NEAR the total GDP.
You wrote, " Any thinking person can see that lowering taxes can't possibly increase revenue or lower the debt."
Except that we have a history. Every time it has been done the tax revenues have gone up. Every time.
Lowering the debt will occur of, and only if, we return to a constitutionally-based limited government.
That's obviously false. It's what the elder President Bush called "voodoo economics". It's also why the bulk of our national debt has been racked up under GOP presidents.
Look at what happened under Ronnie Raygun, the first to propagate that nonsense - the national debt went up 20.6%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d … tial_terms
Hi Doug, Despite your statements it is true. JFK's administration reduced the tax rates. And the economy grew. Reagan did the same and the tax revenues almost doubled.
\Hi Doug, look at this only if you have the courage to actually digest it and make it your own.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmaster … e-revenue/
Your source cited a 'study' by the Heritage Foundation. Sorry. HF is a pure propaganda outlet. My source cites real facts.
The deficit went up...
1.7 Trillion under Reagan
1.4 Trillion under the first Bush
It went DOWN...
1.6 Trillion under Clinton with higher taxes.
The deficit soared under Shrubbie -
4.63 TRILLION under Bush
With all due respect...
ARE YOU INSANE?
I think we shall have to agree to disagree. We are talking about two different things. I am speaking of the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. There is an inverse relationship. As tax rates diminish the tax revenues go up.
You refer to debt. The party in power has control over that. So for Reagain it was the democrats who spent way more than we collected.
Corporate America is sitting on 2 trillion dollars. They got their tax cut. They could care LESS about jobs.
After all, the poor things were so put-upon that WE had to PAY them to take jobs out of America! (tax breaks...big surprise,right?)
Can't you just feel their pain?
If they cared at all about the deficit, why did they add to it???
Can Trump ask them that? Oh right, I forgot...he's a Birther. Never mind.
You know those fat cats!! God damn, I hate them so much!!
The other day, one said "crap, i have to hire more people because my business is getting larger!!"
I ACTUALLY saw a "help wanted" sign outside my local MULTI-BILLION INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL EVIL SATANIC McDonald's.
Those bastards wanted to hire ME?!!? GOD DAMMIT I HATE THEM!!! What the hell is this "$7.50 an hour" crap!! YOU'RE TRILLIONAIRES!!! I DEMAND at LEAST $50,000 / hour because YOU can afford it!
Who cares if that would make burgers cost $70 and put you out of business -- you're RICH, so no one cares!! GOD DAMMIT I HATE YOU!!!
Then you'd be POOR!! ONE OF US!! ... and...
... and i guess I'd have to stop hating you...
Wow, who'd have thought it!
Macdonalds only sell less than one burger an hour!!
I wanted to comment, but I actually don't understand what you're trying to argue with that comment.
Well, your argument that paying burger flippers a living wage would mean that burgers would cost $70.
It's only a rough estimate, it might be slightly more than one burger an hour, or it might be a bit less, but if paying $50 an hour is going to bump up the price to $70 a burger then you can only be looking at very very low sales.
it was $50,000 /hour.
And, yes, the point was that with higher prices, demand can decrease to the point of 0.
Too true, but until that price is actually reached higher wages + higher prices will = higher profits.
Obviously selling burgers for $70 a throw would not sell many at all but if increasing wages a bit meant a more dedicated and harder working staff a price increase would probably not be necessary at all.
LOL! I so wish you'd start a service business, a low profit, low skill, service business. And then, keep it going a while, so that when you make some money, we can verbally abuse you for your greed and maltreatment of your employees, etc, etc. True? Who the hell cares? You'd be a businessman and we have an eternal right to moralize and criticize and condemn you for anything we want to make up about you.
I happen to like love. And now I like you too. This was very funny.
One of the Teabagger troll suggested I just 'snipe' at people I disagree with.
I snipe at lies and the ammo is truth. Backed by hard facts. This is one example.
you've never known truth, fact, nor have you ever spoken a civil word.
You wrote, "One of the Teabagger troll suggested I just 'snipe' at people I disagree with."
Okay. You did a few times. I have forgiven you. LOL. Friends?
by American View 7 years ago
I cannot wait to hear the responses on this one. A day after Obama was threatening how he will not pay the armed services, not pay Social Security, not fund Medicare, and more. "we do not have the money to pay these things We need to rasie taxes" I agree with him on eliminating tax breaks...
by ptosis 11 months ago
Do you like the GOP tax bill that will increase the deficit by $1 trillion?If hate it then I ask you, did you contact your 2 senators that represent you via email or phone? Since 1971 the middle class has lost 30% of its wealth What this bill does is take $8 billion from the middle class to...
by Ralph Deeds 7 years ago
Here's a small idea for the Super Committee that's supposed to report on how to achieve a trillion dollar savings in the federal budget by November 23--stop paying pension costs of Defense and Energy Department contractors.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/busin … f=businessI wonder what the...
by Barefootfae 5 years ago
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fe … 6609140980I see more and more of these yet someone will get on here and tell me it's wrong.
by Stacie L 7 years ago
The 15 richest members of CongressDemocrats making the list include former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former presidential candidate John Kerry. But which Republicans hold the top two spots?By CNBC and Roll CallCNBC on MSN MoneyMingling money and powerRecently, Roll Call analyzed the financial...
by SparklingJewel 7 years ago
...this guy is a truly non-partisan, clear thinking, fiscally responsible citizen of the United States of AmericaAugust 1, 2011ALEXANDRIA, Virginia - Today, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement outlining his opposition to the debt ceiling deal struck between the White...
Copyright © 2019 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|