Bush/Cheney 1040's prove Rich NOT overtaxed

on Apr 16, 2005

Dr Guy

If you look at the Federal budget you will quickly realize that there are no combination of cuts that will bring the budget into balance. This year would require $675 Billion in cuts. Not Possible or even close. that is why we must repeal the tax cuts to the wealthy, look for some cuts such as the pork and follow a more aggressive collection policy. But to say were going to balance our budget with spending cuts is totally unrealistic.

We are spending about 500 billion on defense and 487 billion on all other non-DoD discretionary(most of the so called Discretionary pays for the operation of the government). Medicaid is about 194 billion and other manditory spending is 337 Billion . Social Security is about 515 billion and Medicare another 290 billion. There simply is no way to cut anything approaching $675 billion in federal expenditures. We are like a family that is spending 25% more than their income. The answer is a part-time job which in the terms of our government is additional tax revenue. If you get the added revenue from the middle and low income workers you adversly impact spending and the GDP growth. That is why the only place to get the added tax revenue is from the wealthy. They can afford it and it will have far less impact on spending and GDP .

17

COL Gene

on Apr 16, 2005

Dr Guy

If you look at the Federal budget you will quickly realize that there are no combination of cuts that will bring the budget into balance. This year would require $675 Billion in cuts. Not Possible or even close. that is why we must repeal the tax cuts to the wealthy, look for some cuts such as the pork and follow a more aggressive collection policy. But to say were going to balance our budget with spending cuts is totally unrealistic.

We are spending about 500 billion on defense and 487 billion on all other non-DoD discretionary(most of the so called Discretionary pays for the operation of the government). Medicaid is about 194 billion and other manditory spending is 337 Billion . Social Security is about 515 billion and Medicare another 290 billion. There simply is no way to cut anything approaching $675 billion in federal expenditures. We are like a family that is spending 25% more than their income. The answer is a part-time job which in the terms of our government is additional tax revenue. If you get the added revenue from the middle and low income workers you adversly impact spending and the GDP growth. That is why the only place to get the added tax revenue is from the wealthy. They can afford it and it will have far less impact on spending and GDP .

18

Draginol

on Apr 16, 2005

There's no set of tax increases that will balance the budget. Get rid of Medicaid entirely and you're down (using your figures) $194 billion rigth there. Cut down Medicare drastically and you can sqeeze out quite a bit mroe too.

There's plenty of discretionary programs that could be cut as well. Don't say you can't cut the budget to balance it. I've written many times, quite specifically what would need to be cut and by how much.

I have also provided you with charts from the CBO that demonstrate that tax cuts didn't cause the deficits. You never address these things. You jus tdeny and move on.

19

bakerstreet

on Apr 16, 2005

Yes, paying 1/5th of your income IS too much for anyone to pay, and I haven't lost my mind. It just goes to show how brainwashed people are to think that the wealthy should be punished for their wealth.

20

COL Gene

on Apr 16, 2005

Draginol

come to reality. You're not going to cut Medicaid or Medicare or anything like that to balance the budget. The vast majority of Americans would not stand for cuts like that. It is not a matter of punishing people it a matter of doing what needs to be done to pay for our society. We could cut 100 billion if we get out of Iraq. We could probably cut another 50 billion by eliminating foreign aid and the pork that is at an all-time high. We might even be able to get another hundred billion with more aggressive tax collection. That still leaves us about hundred billion dollars out of balance. The tax cuts have added to the deficit. All you have to do is repeal the tax cuts on the top two income tax brackets and the reduction in dividend and capital gains rates and several billions of dollars every year will flow in to the treasury which will reduce the deficit. That's where that $270 billion comes from. Bottom line you are not going to balance the budget with cuts and we need increased tax revenues to avoid financial disaster.

21

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 16, 2005

If you look at the Federal budget you will quickly realize that there are no combination of cuts that will bring the budget into balance. This year would require $675 Billion in cuts.

I suggested in a previous blog SEVERAL federal agencies that could be downsized or eliminated entirely to bring us closer in line. I also propose cutting the staff of congressmen (currently averaging 150 members per House and Senate member). While I realize they must maintain two offices (one in DC, one in their home district), I feel that by "sharing" certain staff, they could reduce their staff to about 50. That's a 2/3 reduction in that area. Assuming each staff member makes $50,000 /year (many likely make more), that's a half a billion bucks right there. It still leaves us a long way from even, but it's a good start.

I still don't see how you figure surrendering 1/3 of one's income to be UNDERTAXED! High taxation is a disincentive to achievement.

22

Slanderer

on Apr 16, 2005

My tax returns were sent in a couple week sago. I was taxed at 33% (plus 6% Michigan). My taxes exceeded $100k. How much did you pay in, Colonel? Did I get some special, magical federal services in exchange? Do I get to drive on special roads? Do my kids go to special schools? In fact, is there any tangible difference in the way the government treats me than it does you? No.

Bloody hell, I would gladly walk a mile in your shoes.
I'm in the second teir and closely follow Draggie's percentages but I don't make anywhere near what he makes. Now your Michigan tax is replaced with a pst of 7% and a gst or fed tax of 7%. You fill your car up somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2.40ish a gallon. Well at .945 a litre that that works out in excess of 3.50 a gallon. Please explain.
Link

23

COL Gene

on Apr 16, 2005

If the tax rates were so bad prior to 2000, explain the 1990's and the fact the wealthy did better during that period then EVER before? They did better AFTER paying the highte tax rates. It is just greed on the part of those who have everything they could possibly want or need to want the lower tax rates in effect today. In addition, all the cuts have not taken place yet and when they do, the revenue reduction will be even greater making the problem of balancing the budget worse! The end to the Estate Tax will cut $30-40 Billion EVERY year from the federal revenue! If we had a balenced budget with the tax cuts to the wealthy it would be fine. That is just not the case!

24

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 16, 2005

Enough with the estate tax. The money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED; it should be allowed to pass on to the next generation.

Tax increases on the wealthy trickle down to the poor in the form of higher costs of services, prices, etc, and lower employment due to the employer having less net income to allocate to employees. In the end, it hurts ALL of us. This is why reform MUST center on lowering expenditures and taxes rather than on increasing taxes. Every system of taxation ever administered has fallen disproportionately on the poor; there are reasons for that that cannot be overcome without surrendering individual liberties. I don't agree with it, but I think it beats the hell out of the alternative!

25

Draginol

on Apr 16, 2005

Col Gene - the boom of the 90s was largely because of the lingering effects of the 80s tax-cuts along with vast productivity gains in the 90s thanks to the rise of computer technology.

You could balance the budget if we just froze spending for a year. Wouldn't even have to make cuts.

If you're so worried about the deficit, Col Gene, put your money where your mouth is and start working more hours and sending the proceeds to Washington.

26

ParaTed2k

on Apr 16, 2005

Of course ColGene, tax everyone that makes more than YOU more, but not YOU. Hypocrisy at it's worse!

You make more than most the people in the country, so, by your own logic, you should be paying more than everyone makes less than you.

Or does your kind of logic not count if it is turned against you?

27

Adam Smith, Jr.

on Apr 16, 2005

Mr. Col. Gene, sir, my social studies teacher, Ms. Curve, advocates forbiding inheritance. In China, everyone's equal because the starting line is the same for all, or so Ms. Curve says. She says that it's not fair for Bill Gate's kids to inherit billions. What should we do Col.?

28

COL Gene

on Apr 16, 2005

Bill Gates has said he is giving each of his children $10 Million. Given what he is worth that is pocket change. The reason he gave for this was to give them something but not to take away their incentive to create their own success!

As to balancing the budget with a spending freeze- First, that would produce about $200 Billion assuming the spending was increasing at 8%. That is less then 1/3 what is required and you need to prodice the amount EVERY YEAR. The second year the money would not be there. So much for that bright idea. To balance the budget EVERY year you need new revenue and/or budget cuts that continue each year. Face it, we need ongoing spending cuts and added revenue to balance the budget. Cuts can not be not like the Bush idea of cutting $40 Billion from Medicade. All that does is add the cost of the states and their taxes must increase. After we balance the budget we need to begin generating a real surples to begin paying down the massive dabt we have created. It would take a annual surplus of $175 Billion per year for 30 years to repay the debt Bush will leave this country!

29

Secret Squirrel

on Apr 16, 2005

You base your whole thesis on the returns of just two people out how many thousands?

Not very scientific.

Oh wait, my bad, it's just another Bush bashing arcticle.

Sorry

30

Daiwa

on Apr 17, 2005

Appears I've lost my mind. Thank goodness I'm in such good company.

Cheers,
Daiwa