Now you, too, can soak your way to . . . less of a deficit

Here’s one for the night-time crowd: Visit SoakTheRich.us, play around with the options for raising taxes on CEOs and companies (as depicted, albeit inoperably, below), and report in the comments thread how much budget-balancing progress you can make.

Soak the Rich website

Spoiler alert: You won’t close the deficit this way. Not even if you add the $4 billion to $5 billion from the Buffett Rule. Not even close.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

122 comments Add your comment

Skip

May 1st, 2012
6:11 pm

But soak the poor will work?

ByteMe

May 1st, 2012
6:12 pm

Strawman. Who said that was the ONLY way to close the gap?? Oh, right, same people who are on record saying the ONLY way was to cut spending on social programs.

HDB

May 1st, 2012
6:17 pm

We all admit that a combination of cuts and tax increases are needed…but we need a scalpel, not a meat cleaver. We’re seeing how austerity is working in Europe…..another recession while the US GDP is growing (albeit slower than desired)!

Stephenson Billings

May 1st, 2012
6:26 pm

Well Obama has said it’s not about revenue, but “fairness”….

MarkV

May 1st, 2012
6:35 pm

We all owe the money – the national debt. We all – and that includes our descendants – will have to pay it back, or at least a substantial part of it, one way or another. Fairness has an important role in the decision how the burden should be distributed.

@@

May 1st, 2012
6:38 pm

We can’t get there from here…UNLESS…government spending is cut to the bone and EVERYONE’S taxes are raised…NO EXCEPTIONS!!!

It’s only fair.

Stephenson Billings

May 1st, 2012
6:39 pm

Who defines ‘fair”?

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

May 1st, 2012
6:53 pm

Fairness is always cried for by libs, yet never, ever defined.

MarkV

May 1st, 2012
6:58 pm

We are able to define fairness in many life situations – why shouldn’t we be able to define it in taxes?

Pizzaman

May 1st, 2012
7:09 pm

Any straw, aye Kyle?

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

May 1st, 2012
7:11 pm

Feel free to define it for us right now, MarkV.

What is fairness to you? Man up.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

May 1st, 2012
7:20 pm

I’ll start (since you’re so shy).

Three brackets – no difference whether it is a business or an individual:

$250k or greater = 25%
Established poverty level through $250k = 15%
Poverty level and below = 3%

EVERYBODY PAYS!

NO DEDUCTIONS for anything.

NO SUBSIDIES for any business.

NO DOUBLE TAXATION on profits.

Sister Sarah

May 1st, 2012
7:27 pm

“Fairness” is (quite simply) that a CEO that takes a company under should not get a $100 million golden parachute when a slew of his employees lose their jobs. “Fairness” is a CEO of a SUCCESSFUL company who let’s keep it real is often times nothing more than a FIGUREHEAD who basically travels around to the various offices and give a pep talk after a Q&A session and attend various shi-shi corporate “events” to make 300 times the amount of the employees who REALLY make the company run.

“Fairness” is NOT off-shoring your money when it is earned IN THIS COUNTRY off the backs of its citizens because you desire to avoid paying taxes for the services, benefits and protections you enjoy. “Fairness” is having a sense of moral and social responsibility to your community and fellow countrymen (and women) so as to not offshore your operations simply because you desire to increase your bottom line….further.

“Fairness” is not gladly accepting a handout and putting a different label on it to make it “acceptable” when you don’t need it and doing so at the expense of others and vilifying
THEM for actually needing a “handout”. I could go on and on. I tell you, some people just think they are “all-world” and cannot have their card pulled. Yeah, whatever.

Sister Sarah

May 1st, 2012
7:31 pm

Now REALLY impress us Tiberius and break down the plan using those numbers you provided and detail how it reduces our debt/deficit with projected timeframe? Of course I would enjoy the 15%, but numbers are easy to present. Show us how it’s done.

Now with Ten Percent Fewer Calories

May 1st, 2012
7:31 pm

I didn’t see any options for the preferred GOP method of soaking the poor and disadvantaged, Kyle. Don’t you have an option that allows payroll taxes to be increased and social security and medicare benefits to be decreased in conjunction with your bigger tax cuts for billionaires. And how about a special tax on those 49 percent that pay no taxes. You know the ones. Everyone except you and your fellow Republicans.

jabster

May 1st, 2012
7:37 pm

The only “fair” you get in this world comes with cotton candy, Ferris wheels, and NO FREE RIDES.

Rage

May 1st, 2012
7:40 pm

Tiberius

Along with the tax structure you propose, what would be the overall spending cuts you think is required to get us back into fiscal shape?

Ryan’s budget didn’t seem much better than what the Dems are doing in terms of overall spending

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

May 1st, 2012
7:55 pm

First off, Sister Sarah, a little less hyperbole and a bit more specifics would go further with your 7:27. Add to that kindly tell us how it is the role of government to interfere in the pay scale of any private companies employees.

Now, to your question.

First, there must be cuts. Start with entitlement programs because they take up the bulk of our expenditures.

Raise the retirement age to 70. We’re living longer and healthier, so that artificial age is, well, artificial.

Block grant Medicare payments to the states. They’re more efficient than the Feds ever could be, but at the same time,

Reform health care. Tort reform to reduce excessive testing by 30% of total health care costs. Apply all the GOP reforms already proposed INCLUDING no dropping of coverage for pre-existing conditions or reaching a maximum benefit allowance. Also, forbid states to mandate coverages in plans. There is no reason why an infertile couple should be paying for a policy that covers obstetrics.

Eliminate the Department of Education, and send all that money back to the states.

Sell off U.S park land. Keep about 35%-40% of what we have now.

Cut defense spending by 25%-35% of today’s levels. If any country wants us based in their backyard, let them pay the FULL FREIGHT or we come home.

Now, for the revenue side:

Immediately institute a 5-year moratorium on all Federal regulations that do not DIRECTLY affect consumer, worker or product safety (btw, fire anybody in government who can’t articulate their purpose for working in less than 100 words).

Work with states to develop fast-track enterprise zones where building codes, EPA and EPD regulations and any type of Federal paperwork can be quickly approved by local Federal workers onsite.

Start drilling aggressively for oil and natural gas.

All these together primes the pump for economic development, allowing new businesses to start faster, old businesses to grow faster, and people to be hired faster – all without one dime of taxpayer money. Consumer demand increases and people start buying more and earning more, filling government coffers with new revenue.

If spending remains low and revenues increase, we’re on our way. If not, I might be convinced that a 1% national sales tax, strictly for the purpose of reducing the deficit, might be a good idea to try.

sheepdawg

May 1st, 2012
8:01 pm

shocking you’ve resorted to defending an undefendable stance of the american taliban party

Hillbilly D

May 1st, 2012
8:16 pm

Let’s just file bankruptcy and start over. As long as we have nuclear weapons, that ought to keep the Repo Man, away.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

May 1st, 2012
8:23 pm

Raise all our taxes, let’s fix some infrastructure.

Stephenson Billings

May 1st, 2012
8:27 pm

I’m no expert, but perhaps part of the reason “austerity” isn’t working in Europe, or at least causing a double dip recession, is because they’ve learned the hard way you can only raise taxes so much on the “rich” and/or remove people from the tax roles before it starts to have a negative effect. Perhaps there’s some truth to that “trickle-down” thing, no?

http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/

Stephenson Billings

May 1st, 2012
8:28 pm

The truest definition of “fair” or “fairness” is everyone paying the same tax rate regardless of income, a la fair tax or flat tax.

RGB

May 1st, 2012
8:32 pm

Imagine if there were a food shortage in this country. Everyone knows that farmers produce food, so how would you react to the idea that the best way to increase the food supply is to tax farmers?

Thinking people instantly realize that in taxing farmers, the food producers would have fewer dollars to devote to seed, fertilizer, equipment, chemicals, labor, land, taxes, etc. Some would close shop while others would have to reduce their operations. Less food would be produced.

Now think about jobs and the producers of jobs. Does taxing job creators produce more jobs? Of course not.

One cannot be “pro-food” and anti-farmer. Likewise, one cannot be “pro-jobs” and anti-job creator.

The whole issue of libs taxing producers has nothing to do with raising tax revenue. It has everything to do with punishing successful people under the guise of “fairness”.

So I ask: What is “fair” about causing fewer jobs to be created?

I hope that if you voted for Obama last election, you’ll consider his performance in his first term–and then vote for somebody else in November.

Jm

May 1st, 2012
8:38 pm

Stephenson Billings

May 1st, 2012
8:40 pm

Jm, from the link I posted referring to Germany:

“Clocking in just beneath Finland is Germany, with a 45% marginal tax rate on average income workers. Despite having the largest national economy in Europe (and the fourth largest in the world measured by nominal GDP), Germany has effectively traded off having a comprehensive social safety net against more robust economic growth. Its GDP measured by PPP is $35,539 according to the International Monetary Fund – 21st on the list, behind Belgium. As recently as 2007, TheNewEditor.com reported that Germans were emigrating at their highest rate since the 1940′s, resulting in a “brain drain” on the nation’s brightest and most motivated people. As a result of “high taxes and bureaucracy, thousands of Germans have upped sticks for Austria and Switzerland, or emigrated to the United States” — 155,290 during the year in question, which rivals “levels last experienced in the 1940s during the chaotic aftermath of the Second World War.” Furthermore, emigrants are generally said to be highly motivated and educated, while those immigrating to Germany are increasingly poorer and less educated — perhaps more inclined to consume Germany’s generous social benefits.”

Rage

May 1st, 2012
8:45 pm

Stephenson Billings

May 1st, 2012
8:51 pm

Rafe Hollister

May 1st, 2012
8:59 pm

Jabster is correct, Fairness is not achievable. What is fair to me, would not be “fair” to someone else.

I think people like Finn that constantly advocate for higher taxes, should pay more. Want more, pay more, that sounds fair to me. Want less government, pay less taxes. I think that makes sense.

Ryan’s budget deemed draconian by Oblamer balances the budget in 28 years. That is like taking out an eight year loan on a used AMC Pacer. We need some serious cutting to the spending, eliminating whole agencies and combining the remaining. We need to eliminate all tax credits, deductions, and government sponsored tax breaks for industry.

Rafe Hollister

May 1st, 2012
9:05 pm

RGB

Well said!

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

May 1st, 2012
9:06 pm

Kyle makes the ignorant libtards sad.

SoakTheRich (They Can Afford It) and NotThePoor

May 1st, 2012
9:13 pm

@Tiberius – Banned from Bookman’s and proud of it!

May 1st, 2012
6:53 pm
Fairness is always cried for by libs, yet never, ever defined.
*******************************************************************************************

FAIRNESS is the sine qua non as being equal in provision, in opportunity or in result.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

May 1st, 2012
9:18 pm

Obozo blew $800 billion on a failed stimulus, and the number of jobs has decreased by one million. So, each job he destroyed only cost us $800,000. What a bargain.

SoakTheRich (They Can Afford It) and NotThePoor

May 1st, 2012
9:18 pm

@Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

May 1st, 2012
9:06 pm
Kyle makes the ignorant libtards sad.

********************************************************************

Liiberals are LOL at KYLE.

AND YOU 2.

heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee :)

SoakTheRich (They Can Afford It) and NotThePoor

May 1st, 2012
9:30 pm

@Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

May 1st, 2012
9:18 pm
Obozo blew $800 billion on a failed stimulus, and the number of jobs has decreased by one million. So, each job he destroyed only cost us $800,000. What a bargain.
********************************************************************

FAILED STIMULUS?

LOL

It reformed the way government spends money: One of the key victories of the stimulus.

It saved jobs in education: A $100 billion “shot in the arm” to our nation’s schools saved and created as many as 367,524 jobs in education — allowing school districts to avoid “mass layoffs.”

It created clean energy jobs, too: The stimulus package has saved or created 63,000 jobs in the clean energy infrastructure business.

GM is alive.

The original $787 billion has gone towards “actual government spending” and the rest will be distributed, as per the plan, through 2016.

We should judge its success then.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

May 1st, 2012
9:32 pm

One million fewer jobs than before the stimulus.

Fail.

SoakTheRich (They Can Afford It) and NotThePoor

May 1st, 2012
9:36 pm

@Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

May 1st, 2012
9:18 pm
Obozo blew $800 billion on a failed stimulus, and the number of jobs has decreased by one million. So, each job he destroyed only cost us $800,000. What a bargain.

****************************************************************************

LINK PLEASE :)

Of the nine studies I’ve found, six find that the stimulus had a significant, positive effect on employment and growth, and three find that the effect was either quite small or impossible to detect.

SoakTheRich (They Can Afford It) and NotThePoor

May 1st, 2012
9:37 pm

@Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

May 1st, 2012
9:32 pm
One million fewer jobs than before the stimulus.

Fail.

*****************************************************

LINK PLEASE :)

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

May 1st, 2012
9:38 pm

My link is bls.gov

One million fewer jobs now than before the stimulus.

Big expensive fail. But at least Obozo got to buy off the union thugs, again.

Rafe Hollister

May 1st, 2012
9:39 pm

It reformed the way government spends money: One of the key victories of the stimulus.

It created clean energy jobs, too: The stimulus package has saved or created 63,000 jobs in the clean energy infrastructure business.

Well, I guess reformed spending was that 500 million we gave Oblamers buddies at Solyndra. How many billions did we give to the other solar companies? All for squat.

Better check on all those “green energy jobs”. Once the government money ran out, the jobs and the companies went down the rat hole.

GM is alive because we allowed them to legally fleece their creditors.

Trashman you failed again.

SoakTheRich (They Can Afford It) and NotThePoor

May 1st, 2012
9:56 pm

@Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

May 1st, 2012
9:38 pm
My link is bls.gov
********************************************************

Latest Numbers

Unemployment Rates, seasonally adjusted

Alabama
7.3%(p) in Mar 2012
Alaska
7.0%(p) in Mar 2012
Arizona
8.6%(p) in Mar 2012
Arkansas
7.4%(p) in Mar 2012
California
11.0%(p) in Mar 2012
Colorado
7.8%(p) in Mar 2012
Connecticut
7.7%(p) in Mar 2012
Delaware
6.9%(p) in Mar 2012
D.C.
9.8%(p) in Mar 2012
Florida
9.0%(p) in Mar 2012
Georgia
9.0%(p) in Mar 2012
Hawaii
6.4%(p) in Mar 2012
Idaho
7.9%(p) in Mar 2012
Illinois
8.8%(p) in Mar 2012
Indiana
8.2%(p) in Mar 2012
Iowa
5.2%(p) in Mar 2012
Kansas
6.2%(p) in Mar 2012
Kentucky
8.6%(p) in Mar 2012
Louisiana
7.1%(p) in Mar 2012
Maine
7.2%(p) in Mar 2012
Maryland
6.6%(p) in Mar 2012
Massachusetts
6.5%(p) in Mar 2012
Michigan
8.5%(p) in Mar 2012
Minnesota
5.8%(p) in Mar 2012
Mississippi
9.0%(p) in Mar 2012
Missouri
7.4%(p) in Mar 2012
Montana
6.2%(p) in Mar 2012
Nebraska
4.0%(p) in Mar 2012
Nevada
12.0%(p) in Mar 2012
New Hampshire
5.2%(p) in Mar 2012
New Jersey
9.0%(p) in Mar 2012
New Mexico
7.2%(p) in Mar 2012
New York
8.5%(p) in Mar 2012
North Carolina
9.7%(p) in Mar 2012
North Dakota
3.0%(p) in Mar 2012
Ohio
7.5%(p) in Mar 2012
Oklahoma
5.4%(p) in Mar 2012
Oregon
8.6%(p) in Mar 2012
Pennsylvania
7.5%(p) in Mar 2012
Puerto Rico
15.0% in Mar 2012
Rhode Island
11.1%(p) in Mar 2012
South Carolina
8.9%(p) in Mar 2012
South Dakota
4.3%(p) in Mar 2012
Tennessee
7.9%(p) in Mar 2012
Texas
7.0%(p) in Mar 2012
Utah
5.8%(p) in Mar 2012
Vermont
4.8%(p) in Mar 2012
Virginia
5.6%(p) in Mar 2012
Washington
8.3%(p) in Mar 2012
West Virginia
6.9%(p) in Mar 2012
Wisconsin
6.8%(p) in Mar 2012
Wyoming
5.3%(p) in Mar 2012

SoakTheRich (They Can Afford It) and NotThePoor

May 1st, 2012
9:58 pm

@Rafe Hollister

May 1st, 2012
9:39 pm
GM is alive because we allowed them to legally fleece their creditors.

Trashman you failed again.
*****************************************************************************

L O L @ chew :)

Rage

May 1st, 2012
10:00 pm

Barry

How many Repubs voted against the stimulus, but still threw in some pork for their districts within the very same stimulus bill?

Both Parties do it and I find it hypocritical to say the least

“Hey I voted against that bill……….. now look behind you at this brand new ____________ that I obtained for you great people of the district I work so hard represent”

It is pathetic on both sides of the aisle

Jon

May 1st, 2012
10:04 pm

So if marginal rates go up for the Cox sisters, who do you think gets axed first: Wingfield or Bookman?

yuzeyurbrane

May 1st, 2012
10:06 pm

A+ for being clever. I’m not going to take the bait and plow through it, however. I doubt few commentators really have. I’ll just say that no one ever said economic and budget issues were easy. So let’s forget the slogans.

Rage

May 1st, 2012
10:07 pm

Who makes the most?

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

May 1st, 2012
11:27 pm

Trashman, do not compare “equality” to “fairness”.

And once again the libs on here proved my point.

You all cry for “fairness”, yet never, ever come up with a number. or a standard.

JKL2

May 1st, 2012
11:27 pm

soaktherich(obviously missed the entire article, but flame away)- LINK PLEASE

Try this one http://www.usdebtclock.org/

It’s a shame we’ll have to raise the ceiling again before the election…

Liz

May 2nd, 2012
12:29 am

Kyle, did you happen to look at all the ways the rich soak taxpayers, using their undue influence to carve out exceptions in the tax code or in the federal general budget? Somehow those never get get your attention. It cost a HUGE fortune to subsidize general aviation airports all over this country, so that private jet owners never, or very rarely have to pay landing fees, or to parking fees. Expensive hobbies of the rich are encouraged to be abused for tax purposes. Got a ranch, horse stables, a boat, a plane, just make sure to carry some poor inner city kid, or sick person around, and your got yourself a 401(3)(c) And, nearly everyone in elected office, who are frequently invited to enjoy the freebies, just looks the other way.
Most private planes are registered out of Delaware, or Oklahoma to evade or avoid every tax imaginable. Georgia doesn’t even care to track the abusers. And, the Georgia Open Records specifically denies the public access to sales and use tax records (how very convenient if you want to make sure the abuses remain secret from the general public.)

No, stopping these types of corruptible practices will not pay down the entire deficit, but it would go along way to restoring honor, and fairness needed to encourage citizens to comply with tax laws, so tax collections will support the cost of running this country, without having to rob the middle class of the only deduction responsible for creating a viable middle class in this country: MORTGAGE INTEREST. Without stealing away this deduction from the middle class, you have no chance of broadening the tax base to support the next tax cuts for the wealthy.

Late last year, Senator Colburn did an excellent job at setting out all the tax abuses the rich commonly lower themselves to reduce their effective tax rates to those commonly paid by the lower and middle class. Google it, it was a fantastic report, and a huge eye opener.

Techfan

May 2nd, 2012
3:07 am

Job loss trends late 2008/early 2009 showing pre-stimulus and after stimulus:

Aug 2008: -84,000
Sep 2008: -159,000
Oct 2008: -240,000 <—- Market collapse
Nov 2008: -533,000
Dec 2008: -524,000
Jan 2009: -598,000 <—- Obama inaugurated
Feb 2009: -651,000
Mar 2009: -663,000 <—- ARRA (Stimulus) starts
Apr 2009: -539,000
May 2009: -345,000
Jun 2009: -467,000
Jul 2009: -247,000
Aug 2009: -216,000