The Ryan budget plan, Part III: More trickle-down
In “The Path to Prosperity,” House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan makes it clear that tax increases will not be part of the solution to the nation’s fiscal problems. He intends to address the problem solely through budget cuts, most of them focused on programs affecting the elderly, the sick and the poor. After all, that’s where the money is in the federal budget, especially when you exempt the Pentagon from spending cuts, as Ryan proposes to do.
“The U.S. government is not running sustained deficits because Americans are taxed too little,” the plan states. “The government is running deficits because it spends too much.”
However, that sentiment doesn’t mean that Ryan intends to leave the tax code untouched. Among other things, he proposes to reduce the number of tax brackets from the current six, which would make the income tax flatter and less progressive. He also intends to lower the top tax bracket on individuals and corporations from the current 35 percent to 25 percent.
Inevitably, such changes would have the effect of lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy, while shifting more of the burden to working and middle-class Americans. When combined with the payroll tax, which Ryan concedes is a surtax on earned income below $106,000, a large number of working class and middle-class Americans would probably end up paying a significantly higher percentage of their income in federal taxes than their wealthier counterparts.
I say “probably” because as far as I can tell, Ryan hasn’t released specifics of his tax reform proposal to the public. He did, however, provide considerable detail to the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis to allow it to project the economic impact of the proposed changes. So let’s see what they have to say.
Overall, Heritage projects, the Ryan budget proposal would produce an outcome that frankly would be nothing short of miraculous, including an increase in economic output of $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. That in turn would help drive down the federal deficit considerably.
But how real is it? Unlike projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Heritage analysis relies on what is called “dynamic scoring.” In other words, it programs its computer models to assume that tax cuts on the wealthy and corporations produce enormous economic growth.
For example, let’s take a look at what dynamic scoring does to the projected unemployment rate. The CBO projects that the unemployment rate next year will average 8.4 percent. The Heritage Foundation, using dynamic scoring, projects that if the Ryan plan passes, unemployment would plummet next year to 6.4 percent.
By 2015, the CBO projects, unemployment will be down to 5.9 percent. Under the Ryan plan, Heritage projects it will fall to a remarkable 4.0 percent, declining still further to 2.8 percent in 2021.
2.8 percent?
Who believes that? Nobody believes that. In fact, those projections are so embarrassingly absurd that Heritage itself has gone back into its study and removed them. They were there in the version I downloaded yesterday; they are gone from the version available today.
In this case, Heritage can make ridiculous claims for the economic benefits of Ryan’s plan — claims that help account for the supposed deficit reduction — without fear of those claims being tested against reality. Nobody believes that the plan will ever be adopted.
Ten years ago, however, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis ran similar projections for President Bush’s plan to cut taxes, using the same computer model it used to analyze Ryan’s plan.
Heritage claimed that if the Bush tax cuts were approved, the economy would grow so quickly that by 2010, the entire federal debt would effectively be eliminated.
Not only that, “The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax,” Heritage claimed.
Well ….
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
970 comments Add your comment
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
8:57 pm
Mary Elizabeth, if you knew anything about Alexis de Tocqueville, you’d know that he’d be rolling over in his grave right now to see how the liberal agenda has destroyed the essence of what once was America.
Doggone/GA
April 6th, 2011
8:58 pm
“when the time comes where the masses actually try to vote as you suggest, I doubt highly those folks will sit back and take it”
If voting to put tax rates back to the Clinton era drives them away…when it DIDN’T THEN – let ‘em go. They’ll just open up a hole for someone else with more sense to fill.
In case you haven’t noticed by now, I don’t panic easily.
Del
April 6th, 2011
8:59 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
Interesting and blows the left away.
getalife
April 6th, 2011
9:00 pm
“the liberal agenda has destroyed the essence of what once was America.”
Then some say conservatism is destroying our country.
Lets check the job numbers.
D’oh somebody is lying.
Mick
April 6th, 2011
9:00 pm
lbb
One day you’re going to need a new foil besides president obama. When that time comes you might realize how much time and energy you’ve poured into your undying hatred for this president. Even if you get someone you like, it might finally dawn on you – “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”….
Jay
April 6th, 2011
9:00 pm
It’s not as far-fetched as you would prefer to believe, Doom.
For example, using IRS data from 2007, the highest earning 400 Americans earned an average of $345 million. What do you think their average effective tax rate was on that income?
Hmmm?
Source: http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html
It was 16.5 percent. What was YOUR effective tax rate?
md
April 6th, 2011
9:00 pm
“If voting to put tax rates back to the Clinton era drives them away…when it DIDN’T THEN – let ‘em go. They’ll just open up a hole for someone else with more sense to fill.”
Now, you are moving the goalposts…….first the conversation was about wealth in relation to debt, now it is about just the Clinton era tax rates…….not the same thing.
getalife
April 6th, 2011
9:01 pm
We did very well under the Clinton taxes thank you very much.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 6th, 2011
9:06 pm
getalife,
From the story you referred to…
[Soros} wrote a column calling for a new Bretton Woods event, to recreate the one that helped design the post-WWII economy. Only he wants this one to knock America down a peg or three.
———————-
George Soros: hero of the America-hating libbtards (aka Obozo acolytes).
Mighty Righty
April 6th, 2011
9:06 pm
Jay, you work for the wealthyist person in Georgia. Why don’t you quit and find a job working for a poor person?
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 6th, 2011
9:07 pm
getalife: We did very well under the internet bubble thank you very much.
——————
Your finger must have slipped. I fixed it for you. You’re welcome.
Jay
April 6th, 2011
9:07 pm
They pay me because I make them money, Mighty. Not out of charity. It is mutually beneficial relationship.
AmVet
April 6th, 2011
9:07 pm
That was some funny stuff, Hillbilly.
The funniest car I ever owned?
http://tinyurl.com/43tlf6k
Del
April 6th, 2011
9:09 pm
Is the AJC profitable?
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
9:09 pm
“Then some say conservatism is destroying our country.”
Hmmmm. The liberal agenda has been firmly in place for the last 40 years.
3, possibly 4 recessions, a dot com bust, a Wall St. meltdown. Oh, and let’s not forget $14 TRILLION in debt.
Yeah, I’ll take conservatism any day.
Jay
April 6th, 2011
9:10 pm
Yes it is, Del.
getalife
April 6th, 2011
9:10 pm
lil bar,
That is a nasty hit piece from fox opinion.
beck lived there but was fired.
Jm
April 6th, 2011
9:11 pm
Jay, economist budget guy criticisms on zakaria:
Same: no cut to defense, doesn’t fix tax revenues
Different: does nothing on social security, puts full load on medical costs albeit they r the biggest problem. Discretionary cut requests are modest considering discretionary is up 100% in last 10 years and inflation is only up 30%. Plan does nothing to help fix energy issues
Mick
April 6th, 2011
9:12 pm
del
It was interesting but why do you think it blows the left away? Both parties are complicit in the debt, the clever tactic here tries to tag all of the spending on the left, we didn’t get here overnight….
getalife
April 6th, 2011
9:13 pm
“Wall St. meltdown”
w said he never saw it coming.
Said that about many things.
Clinton was much better.
Mighty Righty
April 6th, 2011
9:13 pm
Jay, regarding ‘effective tax rates” just how many people did they employ, or caused to be employed? The Obama phrase is how many jobs did they save? To avoid taxation you must invest? There is no other way unless you are GE and have the President as your friend. I forgot, there is another way. If you are a Democrat, just don’t pay.
Jm
April 6th, 2011
9:16 pm
Braves down 2-1
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
9:16 pm
“Clinton was much better.”
Because he had a Republican House to rein him in.
Mary Elizabeth
April 6th, 2011
9:16 pm
Dave R @ 8:57 -
Just listen to de Tocqueville’s words here, Davd. And you are correct, I do not know about him from my studies. But just let his words below speak for themselves:
“It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.”
I, of course, think another value of “looking out for the other guy” is that it changes the dynamics in the country – beyond what can be quantified, only, with numbers – to create a synergy among all people, when they work for a common purpose, as happened in WWII – something larger than their individual needs and goals. That commonality of purpose creates a positive energy and productivity beyond simple logic. But it is real and it expands the person and the economy.
MPercy
April 6th, 2011
9:16 pm
Amplifying something I read on Boortz’s site, I present some numbers that I dug up from the IRS website on my own.
In the last year for which data is available, 2008, the highest marginal tax rate was 35%. This rate is paid on AGI above $357,700. Certainly someone with AGI over that value is in the well-to-do category, but may not be “millionaires and billionaires” (but this is immaterial to my point). According to the IRS, the number of returns that were in this highest marginal rate was 971,510. So there’s nearly a million households in this country that are, at least by the IRS bracket definition, “rich”. Not too shabby, it seems the USA is indeed the land of opportunity.
According to the IRS, the cumulative amount of AGI subjected to this highest rate was $622,765,389,000, so let’s round up to $622.8B. The taxes generated on this money is therefore $218B (the IRS reported $217,967,886,000). The overall effective rate for these returns (taxes paid / income) was 28.9%.
Let’s assume for a moment (no matter how unrealistic the assumption is) that no one affected would change a lick of their income-generating behavior as a result if we raised the top marginal rate to 100%. How much revenue would that generate? Why, all of $622.8B, if no one modified their behavior in any way that affected their income and tax impact. That is, it would generate an additional $404.8B in revenue relative to the current 35% bracket.
If you added that $404B to the revenue pot, our deficit this year would still be over $1T…
Jm
April 6th, 2011
9:16 pm
Make that down 3-1
Mick
April 6th, 2011
9:18 pm
dave r @ 9:09
Hyperbole much? I’m sure the cons had a hand or two getting us to the 14 trillion. In your earnest desire to blame libs, you reek of hypocrisy, keep your eye on the ball instead of a swing and a miss…
VOL
April 6th, 2011
9:18 pm
Kuds to Ryan. Finally a politician that says to the poor and middle class “It’s time to pay your fair share”. If you get more bang for the buck from the gubment then the poor and middle class should have no problem truning over a little more to help pay for their welfare programs. Let’s just see how much popular support there is for these programs when all are made to pay for them.
Thulsa Doom
April 6th, 2011
9:18 pm
Salaries and wages, the source of income taxed at the blue line, represented only 6.5 percent of these filers’ income. Nearly two-thirds of their income comes from capital gains- from the site.-Jay’s site
Jay,
Thanks and that’s a good site. From the info it looks pretty obvious of course that their income is in the form mainly of deferred compensation that we don’t see and of course capital gains- the 15% Warren Buffet effect where the super wealthy pay less in taxes than the the ordinary person and where Buffet pays less than his secretary.
The reality there is that if you want to correct that you have to tax either wealth or raise the capital gains tax and it seems that is a different debate.
We’re talking about the 400 wealthiest Americans and in that example we all know they are going to pay little in taxes due to the capital gains nature of their earnings.
My point is that the average doctor or business owner that makes 250k-500k or more still pays significantly more in marginal tax rates than the average Joe. Still a very good source though and thanks for providing it.
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
9:19 pm
Mary Elizabeth, there is nothing to argue about the basic premise. The difference is whether we do it on our own volition, as de Tocqueville always intended us to do (and we do quite well even now), or whether we are forced to do it by a gun to our backs.
In this case it is not the result, but how you get there.
Left wing management
April 6th, 2011
9:21 pm
Word has it an order just went out from the White House for 17 large supreme pizzas, 6 orders of buffalo wings — and some tanning lotion.
Del
April 6th, 2011
9:22 pm
Mick,
You’re correct both parties are complicit for our financial mess but the left continues their misbelief that the solution is wealth redistribution. As it’s pointed out government spending outpaces any money we could possibly extract from the wealth producers in our country.
@@
April 6th, 2011
9:22 pm
Didn’t Tocqueville promote the individual over the state? It’s been awhile.
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
9:24 pm
“Hyperbole much? I’m sure the cons had a hand or two getting us to the 14 trillion. In your earnest desire to blame libs, you reek of hypocrisy, keep your eye on the ball instead of a swing and a miss…”
Sorry, Mick, but as usual you are wrong about me. I’m probably the most consistent on this blog in laying the blame of overspending at the feel of both parties. Would that you and others could be so intellectually honest about it. The difference is that I take the extra step that few others do and look at the root cause of the overspending, which is largely the liberal agenda put in place over the past 40 years. And yes, other things have contributed to this fiscal mess, but none so much as the social programs no one is willing to touch.
Jm
April 6th, 2011
9:24 pm
Lwm
Consensus reality is taxes going to have to go up on everyone. It would be best to cut spending to soften the magnitude of the tax increases
AmVet
April 6th, 2011
9:24 pm
Finally a politician that says to the…middle class “It’s time to pay your fair share”.
Did I read this correctly?
I presume it is straight up sarcasm.
MPercy
April 6th, 2011
9:24 pm
Jay, the left cries when we talk about how 47% don’t pay income taxes (”They pay other taxes, you know!”). So what is the effective rate for all taxes paid, not just income taxes?
According to the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8885), in terms of share of all federal taxes paid (circa 2005, all federal taxes in income tax, FICA, excise taxes, etc. combined)…
The lowest quintile paid just 0.8% of all federal taxes (and -2.9% of individual income taxes), having earned 4% of the income.
The 2nd quintile paid 4.1% of all federal taxes (and -0.9% of individual income taxes), having earned 8.5% of the income.
The middle quintile paid 9.3% of all federal taxes, having earned 13.3% of the income.
The 4th quintile paid 16.9% of all federal taxes, having earned 19.8% of the income.
The top quintile paid 68.7% of all federal taxes, having earned 55.1% of the income.
The top 1% paid 27.6% of all federal taxes, having earned 18.1% of the income.
The effective tax rate for All Federal Taxes (individual income, SS, FICA, corporate, and excise):
Lowest quintile: 4.4%
Second quinitile: 9.9%
Middle quintile: 14.2%
Fourth quintile: 17.4%
Highest quintile: 25.5%
Top 10%: 27.4%
Top 5%: 28.9%
Top 1% 31.2%
Effective tax rates are total taxes paid divided by comprehensive household income.
The CBO does not report on the cumulative taxes of just 400 people.
@@
April 6th, 2011
9:24 pm
Oops! Dave R. confirmed what my memory recalled. Government regulation of the human spirit is BAD, BAD, BAD.
Mighty Righty
April 6th, 2011
9:25 pm
Jay, I am sure you earn evry penney just like the so called rich people. But Jay, the party line for Damncrats is that all earned money is taken from the poor.
Mick
April 6th, 2011
9:26 pm
**misbelief that the solution is wealth redistribution**
No, no, no, no that is your belief, what I and may others are asking for is a fairness issue. Progressive tax policy whereby the more you make, the more you pay and I’m only talking about 4 or 5% more. That would most likely only put a microscopic dent in many a portfolio….
Thulsa Doom
April 6th, 2011
9:28 pm
MPercy,
Thanks much for the info.
Jay was focusing on the top 400 wealthiest Americans who have their wealth and earnings tied up mostly in investments and your focus is on the top 1% actual earners which is in fact almost a million households.
According to the IRS, the cumulative amount of AGI subjected to this highest rate was $622,765,389,000, so let’s round up to $622.8B. The taxes generated on this money is therefore $218B (the IRS reported $217,967,886,000). The overall effective rate for these returns (taxes paid / income) was 28.9%.
Dusty
April 6th, 2011
9:28 pm
So, the AJC is making money. Is that why the print is small, the advertisements are huge and on Sunday they keep putting sections together? Must be internet riches or the back up wealth of the Cox family.
I’m glad Bookman is making all that money in mutual cooperation. He will be paying more taxes to help pay for all the stuff he advocates. Too bad he has to have a one track mind to do it.
Jm
April 6th, 2011
9:30 pm
Smaller government is better government
Left wing management
April 6th, 2011
9:31 pm
Del: “You’re correct both parties are complicit for our financial mess but the left continues their misbelief that the solution is wealth redistribution.”
So many fallacies, so little server space.
Yes, both parties are corrupt (one hopelessly so, the other one having started out a pretty good kid but gone over to the dark side), but that fact tells us nothing about the notion of “wealth redistribution”, a pseudo-problem if ever there was one. Any accumulation of wealth is ‘redistribution’, Del, by definition.
“As it’s pointed out government spending outpaces any money we could possibly extract from the wealth producers in our country”
Without government, the wealth producers produce zilch. And of course, there’s no bigger wealth producer than the workers themselves.
Mick
April 6th, 2011
9:31 pm
dave r
I have never collected one red cent of assistance from this gov’t, but I’ll be damned if after paying 50 years into social security this younger generation wants to take it out of my hide for cuts – ain’t gonna happen and we have the numbers not to let it…
@@
April 6th, 2011
9:31 pm
Dusty:
The AJC’s dead tree reminds me of what I’m seeing at the grocery store. Higher prices, smaller portions.
Thulsa Doom
April 6th, 2011
9:32 pm
Mick,
As MPercy pointed out in his 9:16 post if you taxes the top 1% income earners or nearly a million families at the top at a 100% tax rate and applied that taxation to the federal deficit- projected at 1.65 trillion for the FY 2011 we would still have a deficit of over a trillion dollars. The problem is spending and it is us. Taxing the top 1% of income earners is not going to solve the problem- not even close.
Del
April 6th, 2011
9:32 pm
mick, “the more you make the more you pay” You’re only talking 4 to 5% more. Well maybe you see it that way but the far-left doesn’t and unfortunately the party of irresponsibility has been taken over by those people who see it far and away beyond what you do.
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
9:33 pm
“I have never collected one red cent of assistance from this gov’t, but I’ll be damned if after paying 50 years into social security this younger generation wants to take it out of my hide for cuts – ain’t gonna happen and we have the numbers not to let it…”
And since no one is suggesting that is going to happen, your poutrage is misplaced.
@@
April 6th, 2011
9:33 pm
Mick:
Do you have kids?
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 6th, 2011
9:34 pm
If Warren Buffet was really appalled that his secretary pays a lower rate than him, he could pay at the same rate as her.
He could send a check to this address.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
9:35 pm
Dusty, I think that Jay is underpaid on hyperbole, and overpaid on accuracy.
All-in-all, it seems to balance itself out.
Mick
April 6th, 2011
9:36 pm
doom
I never said we shouldn’t cut but at the same time we need more revenue, the tax holiday needs to end in 2012 and we all need to pony up to chip away at the deficit. At least get it going in the opposite direction – it will take both measures…
Left wing management
April 6th, 2011
9:37 pm
Jm 9:24: “Consensus reality is taxes going to have to go up on everyone. It would be best to cut spending to soften the magnitude of the tax increases”
No, you don’t seem to understand. Raising taxes is off the table. Remember?
Mick
April 6th, 2011
9:40 pm
dave r
He gets paid to write, a craft many here think they can do. Judging from all the responses both pro and con, bookman earns his keep and then some….
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
9:40 pm
Two steaming piles in one post. Not a record for LWM, but close.
“Any accumulation of wealth is ‘redistribution’, Del, by definition.”
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that one is voluntary, and one is forced. Forced being the less effective and less desirable means.
“Without government, the wealth producers produce zilch.”
Biggest steaming pile posted in the entire day. Please tell us all how we need government in order to produce – anything.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 6th, 2011
9:40 pm
Studies have shown that liberals are less charitable than conservatives. They try to make up for it by passing laws confiscating the property of others and giving it to deadbeats. Democrats facilitate the scheme in order to maintain their power.
md
April 6th, 2011
9:42 pm
,” what I and may others are asking for is a fairness issue. Progressive tax policy whereby the more you make, the more you pay and I’m only talking about 4 or 5% more.”
Fair??
Let’s take 2 comparable individuals………the first has a taxable income of 50k and he has the same earnings for 4 years…….his tax rate is 25%…..
The second guy has terrible luck and can’t get a job for 3 years and then finds one with taxable income of 200k for one year only………..his tax rate is 33%….
Two individuals making the same money over a 4 year period, and one gets to pay more tax….
How exactly is that “fair”………………
And I have yet to enter any other variables like educational debt, choices, sacrifices, etc………..
getalife
April 6th, 2011
9:42 pm
Dave,
You tried to steal ss and now doing the same thing with medicare.
You call it privatization.
Not on my watch.
Mary Elizabeth
April 6th, 2011
9:42 pm
Dave R
But, you see, I don’t feel I have a gun at my back when I want to look after my fellow man and woman. I want to do that of my own volition and as part of my government – as I did as a teacher. Nobody could have been happier in his career than I was for 35 years because bettering others nurtured my own soul and I knew I was contributing to something larger than myself, not simply taking.
I know many want to contribute to others – not through government – but in other ways, but that is a hit and miss plan with more misses than hits – for the society at large. And with that plan the dynamics of the country change, too, when so many are “left behind.” It is essentially an “every man for himself” dynamic that is dominant with giving as an after thought or after effect, and that “survival of the fittest” dominance is felt throughout every institution in the nation.
I believe the other way, of believing in the “common good,” carries its dynamic throughout the nation, also, and that it is more motivating and inspiring because it lifts rather than judges. People are, again, more inspired and positive when leaders motivate them to want to give of themselves in part to others.
TThat happened not only in WWII, but in the Civil Rights Era, and in building Detente with the Soviet Union, in working together to get a man on the moon – large events that bring us out of counting our own pennies in comparison with someone else’s pennies – that shrinks America’s vision and I believe shrinks her economy, as well, through a greed mindset.
We are capable of big and even noble ambitions in our nation and we feel better about ourselves when we follow and trust in this path. It is very hard to do today, however, because politicians of both parties are so often “owned” by big money and big corporate interests in which what I have described of another era seems outdated and even naive. But I still believe in the underlying spiritual reality of what I have said and how it subconsciously effects even our economic prosperity for all.
Mick
April 6th, 2011
9:43 pm
lbb
Who cares about studies, what do you give? That’s all that matters….
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 6th, 2011
9:44 pm
Gotta love the Georgia Lottery, the only scheme where the takers “give back” to the makers!
Del
April 6th, 2011
9:44 pm
Left Wing, The problem becomes when government believes that they are responsible for economic production instead of only facilitating it. Unfortunately, our government has come to that dangerous belief.
Adam
April 6th, 2011
9:45 pm
@@: My cougar owns, wait for it, A COUGAR. lol.
Mick
April 6th, 2011
9:45 pm
md
Terrible example and not very realistic. If someone were to go from zero to 200k, that person would know how to budget, the extra 5% would be negligible…
getalife
April 6th, 2011
9:46 pm
The death panels for Social Security and Medicare are the gop.
This is another reason cons will lose.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 6th, 2011
9:46 pm
Mary Elizabeth, mind your own business please.
Thanks!
Left wing management
April 6th, 2011
9:46 pm
I can picture our nation’s finest pundit David Brooks is in his bedroom right now with the lights off, lying on his bed with his hands behind his head. He’s lost in reverie as he contemplates the marvelous bravery and courage of Paul Ryan, who is going to lead this great nation back to real seriousness that we can all get behind.
Thulsa: “As MPercy pointed out in his 9:16 post if you taxes the top 1% income earners or nearly a million families at the top at a 100% tax rate and applied that taxation to the federal deficit- projected at 1.65 trillion for the FY 2011 we would still have a deficit of over a trillion dollars. The problem is spending and it is us. Taxing the top 1% of income earners is not going to solve the problem- not even close.”
Reigning in health care costs will.
Thulsa Doom
April 6th, 2011
9:48 pm
Mick,
I remember several years ago reading that the average social security beneficiary gets back everything they paid into the ss plus interest in 3 1/2 years. After that you’re basically on welfare and someone else is footing the bill.
Now I’m not saying that we cut the Medicare for future beneficiaries such as yourself when a promise was made. But there does have to be means testing- particularly for the wealthiest amongst us.
And while you probably won’t get screwed I certainly will since I’m only 44 and they’ve already determined that people under 55 are probably going to have to wait 2-3 more years to retire- not sure if they’ve passed that yet or if its just something that is imminent. Either way it looks like its going to happen.
That’s not fair to all of us that are under 55 that the boomers are going to bankrupt the system so that we have to take benefits at a later age.
That’s why govt sucks in my opinion. I could have done much better investing the money myself than these fools in big gubment. And now my generation will be screwed whereas other generations will have gotten their money as much as 5 years before me.
The right and moral thing to do would be to let people decide to opt out if they would like to and invest on their own. But you won’t get that freedom from these bureaucratic bungling with pompous intent politicians.
Kamchak
April 6th, 2011
9:48 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
April 6th, 2011
9:46 pm
Mary Elizabeth, mind your own business please.
Thanks!
If only you had heeded your own advice last night….
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 6th, 2011
9:49 pm
“People are, again, more inspired and positive when leaders motivate them to want to give of themselves in part to others.”
———————-
Only the weak of mind. Fully functioning adults don’t need to elect people to motivate them. Pure garbage, ME.
Jason
April 6th, 2011
9:50 pm
Buffet,Schmidt, etc. play patsy on the tax game for the gov’t to hand them more business. Anyone remember the Goldman Sachs preferred stock “bail out” Buffet gave Goldman? Do you really think the gov’t was not involved? The best is the same Buffet places have his fortune into a foundation for the benefit of his chosen charities which eliminates 100’s of million of current federal income tax on the charitable deduction and wipes another 500 million or so of estate tax. Libs fall for that stuff hook, line, and sinker.
MPercy
April 6th, 2011
9:50 pm
You can check my numbers yourself at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in34tr.xls.
In that same spreadsheet you can see that relatively little money was taxed at *any* of the capital gains rates.
In 2008, of the more than $8T in income & capital gains reported, there was $675.1B in the 15% CG rate bracket, $37.7B in the 25% CG bracket and $4.7B in the 28% CG bracket. After adjustments, the actual amount taxed was $453.8B (15%), $31.5B (25%) and $3.7B (28%).
This resulted in $57.5B, $5.3B, and $794M, or a total of about $63.6B.
Apparently, nearly all these capital gains were held by the top 400 “richest” people.
But who cares. If you could magically change the rate on CG to 50% and not have *anyone* involved change *anything* about the way they invest or allow CG to impact their taxable income bottom line, you’d generate perhaps $244.5B. Raise it to 100% and you get $489B.
If you could pull this feat off for both the 100% top marginal rate over $357,700 and get the “extra” $622B in taxes, plus raise the CG rate to 100% to get $489B and do so without negatively affecting how people earn or invest their money (and happily fork over the 100% taxes), you *still* don’t come close to balancing the revenues against the spending (can’t say “balance the budget” since there hasn’t been one in a year or so–how did Dems, who had total control of Congress and the WH not manage to pass a budget).
You’d still be short by about $400B? But you’d have stuck it to those evil rich folks, though right?
This example and my previous example should make one thing pretty clear. There is simply no way to generate (by increase taxes) the revenue to match the spending our government is churning out every day.
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
9:51 pm
“Dave,
You tried to steal ss and now doing the same thing with medicare.
You call it privatization.
Not on my watch.”
I tried to steal your Social Security, getalife? When did I try to do that?
And oh, by the way, it was never proposed that current or near-term Social Security recipients were going to be affected by any attempts to save the system from fiscal meltdown, unless you’re 20 years old. You act like you’re 4 years old, but I don’t think you’re really that young.
Thulsa Doom
April 6th, 2011
9:52 pm
Left wing management,
You are correct in that reigning in health care costs would help with the deficit- that and getting out of 3 wars and scaling down the military as well as many useless and duplicative govt programs.
But Obamacare will only increase costs. If you believe in the fairy tale that Obama care will then you need to take a look at real life examples of the cost of health care programs.
Forget about what you and I think and look at what medicaid and medicare originally were forecast to cost and what they originally took up out of the federal budget.
Then look at what they really ended up costing over time- especially today- and look at their share of the federal budget today. I rest my case.
Dusty
April 6th, 2011
9:53 pm
Dave R,
Did you say”it all balances itself out”??
Hmmmm….errrr…..well balanced ?….I thought we were talking about Bookman who is about as balanced as a play ground super slide. But, as he said, he gets paid to do it. Who needs journalism in its sense of unvarnished and honest standards? It has been banished for “opinion” journalism, a sad loss.
MPercy
April 6th, 2011
9:53 pm
Mick @9:31 pm dave r I have never collected one red cent of assistance from this gov’t, but I’ll be damned if after paying 50 years into social security this younger generation wants to take it out of my hide for cuts – ain’t gonna happen and we have the numbers not to let it…
I got paid $25/day for several days of jury duty over the last few years. Donated it all to the local animal shelter.
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
9:54 pm
Mary Elizabeth, I’m glad you don’t feel the gun at your back.
I do.
A velvet prison is still just a prison.
getalife
April 6th, 2011
9:55 pm
“I don’t think you’re really that young.”
Dave got one right.
/Fainting couch.
Adam
April 6th, 2011
9:55 pm
LBB: Only the weak of mind. Fully functioning adults don’t need to elect people to motivate them. Pure garbage, ME.
Oh, does that mean you’ll stop that whole “Obama isn’t leading” garbage?
Jackie
April 6th, 2011
9:56 pm
Does the government provide the structure for all of us to earn a living, be it working for yourself or working for others?
Who provides the infrastructure, courts, bank regulation, money, market exchange regulations, internet, etc., etc., etc.,?
Mick
April 6th, 2011
9:57 pm
doom
I have a retirement pension to look forward to but I want my social security and I want you to get yours also. It doesn’t take much to fix it and we know what to do, first off raise the cap. I constantly hear how people could do much better on their own but there are two potential problems with that; one are the fee’s you would be paying, and second what would you do if you were retiring and needed your money in a period such as sept 08? Social security was brilliantly devised as a safety net but it gets pummelled constantly by younger cons. That’s OK because I used to say it won’t be there for me also but now that I’m nearly there I want it for all who follow and it is quite doable..
Left wing management
April 6th, 2011
9:57 pm
Thulsa: “But Obamacare will only increase costs. If you believe in the fairy tale that Obama care will then you need to take a look at real life examples of the cost of health care programs.”
Well we don’t know yet. But I agree it’s nothing like it should be, because they scrapped the single payer route and passed a health reform plan that was hatched on the right and is a free-marketer’s dream.
Adam
April 6th, 2011
9:57 pm
Oh Jackie, surely you know private corporations can do all of that better! Right? Right?
getalife
April 6th, 2011
9:58 pm
“Mary Elizabeth, I’m glad you don’t feel the gun at your back.
I do”
Paranoia going to destroy you.
Are you going to miss beck?
Adam
April 6th, 2011
9:58 pm
I don’t want to have to have social security. The way things are going I won’t need it. But I don’t mind putting in my taxes for those who do need it.
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 6th, 2011
9:58 pm
I remember several years ago reading that the average social security beneficiary gets back everything they paid into the ss plus interest in 3 1/2 years.
You also have to remember that dollars paid into Social Security in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s were worth more than today’s dollar.
Thulsa Doom
April 6th, 2011
9:59 pm
getalife
April 6th, 2011
9:46 pm
The death panels for Social Security and Medicare are the gop.
This is another reason cons will lose.-getalife
So are the republican death panels a real thing backed up by a link? Or is this just your OPINION- in other words ridiculous rhetoric backed up by ZERO FACTS.
Del
April 6th, 2011
9:59 pm
H.D. Glad to see you back for what it’s worth from this old Marine.
Left wing management
April 6th, 2011
10:00 pm
Adam: “I don’t want to have to have social security. The way things are going I won’t need it. But I don’t mind putting in my taxes for those who do need it.”
Atta boy. That’s my commie pinko comrade talking!
MPercy
April 6th, 2011
10:00 pm
It has been common of late for certain rich folks, like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, Sr. to advocate higher tax rates. And yet, many of these same folks just jumped on Bill Gates, Jr.’s cause celebre and are giving away large fractions of their wealth–but not to the government.
What Mr. Gates & Mr. Buffet, et al. are doing is merely acknowledging that they would rather *not* have their money going into the bottomless void of Government, despite their rather public (esp. Mr. Buffet) protestations about how little they pay in taxes and how taxes should be higher.
If they truly believe that, then they should have simply allowed their fortunes to be pillaged by the Government at the time of their death. The creation of the Foundation is contradictory to their professed love of Government as the solution to all problems.
They didn’t do it to save a few million or even billion on their taxes, they simply don’t actually trust the Government with their money.
@@
April 6th, 2011
10:01 pm
Adam:
@@: My cougar owns, wait for it, A COUGAR.
You’re dating a lesbian? A bisexual?
It gets curioser and curioser.
Mary Elizabeth
April 6th, 2011
10:01 pm
Well, I’ve said enough of my thoughts for tonight. Goodnight to all. I hope you each have a good evening. And thanks for no insults, of any significance! A much more pleasant evevning, and I think I was better in my deportment, too, if I do say so!
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
10:01 pm
“Are you going to miss beck?”
I think I watched maybe 3 of his shows. Unlike you, I can think for myself.
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 6th, 2011
10:01 pm
Thanks Del.
Adam
April 6th, 2011
10:02 pm
@@: I WISH I was dating a bisexual. Those are so much more fun because we can eye down women TOGETHER and I don’t get b*tched out. As it happens, this one likes to b*tch me out on that one haha.
Thulsa Doom
April 6th, 2011
10:03 pm
Hillbilly deluxe- you may have read to quickly but the report I read said including accrued interest. I’ll have to look it up some time. But I have seen various mathematical illustrations showing that the return on one’s dollar with the ss system is 1%.
Even if you invested in something ultra safe like bank cds the math is clear- you come out better ahead with your money if you would have had the option to invest it on your own.
getalife
April 6th, 2011
10:05 pm
doom,
w’s failed ss policy and ryan’s death cuts.
Never doubt me doom.
Left wing management
April 6th, 2011
10:05 pm
Having just been told by Mike Pence that the Democrats actually secretly desire a government shutdown, a whipped up crowd immediately broke into chants of “Shut – it – down!! Shut – it – down!! Shut – it – down!!”
Crowds aren’t much for irony. But Left Wing Management is.
Dave R.
April 6th, 2011
10:06 pm
Off for the evening. I can’t wait for part 4 of Jay’s fiction series tomorrow !