Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation

[carpro]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/warren-buffett-s-tax-solution-won-t-solv

Warren Buffett’s Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation

Friday, August 19, 2011
By Matt Cover

Finally, to put everything in perspective, think about what would need to be done to erase the federal deficit this year: After everyone making more than $200,000/year has paid taxes, the IRS would need to take every single penny of disposable income they have left. Such an act would raise approximately $1.53 trillion,” reported the Tax Foundation.




Spending is the problem. Not taxes.

 

[carpro]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27542.html

In his op-ed, Mr. Buffett suggests that increasing taxes on the rich ensures that they pay their fair share. Perhaps, but while the top 1 percent of taxpayers earn 20 percent of the nation's income, they currently pay nearly 40 percent of the income taxes. That's a greater share of the burden than the bottom 90 percent combined (that's everyone earning under $100,000 by the way).

Let's not forget that when the top marginal income tax rate was 70 percent in 1980, the rich paid 20 percent of all income taxes. Yet now, when the top marginal rate is 35 percent they pay twice that.

 

[targus]

Such an act would raise approxima...ubt it would all go straight to new spending.

 

[freeatlast]

Raising Taxes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgTFiMUF4kY&feature=related

 

[InTheLight]

False premise. No one is suggesting that taxing the rich will wipe out the deficit.

 

[Don]

Crabtown used to imply just that....

 

[carpro]

False premise. No one is suggesting that taxing the rich will wipe out the deficit.

Democrats seem to think a tax increase is the cure for all ills. They never talk about the real problem...spending.

Therefore , it's not a "premise" at all, but an illustration of the folly of such thinking.

 

[InTheLight]

Democrats seem to think a tax increase is the cure for all ills. They never talk about the real problem...spending.

Therefore , it's not a "premise" at all, but an illustration of the folly of such thinking.

Show me one Democrat that has said that taxing the wealthy will solve the deficit.

 

[mandym]

False premise. No one is suggesting that taxing the rich will wipe out the deficit.

Your statement has a premise contrary to the op. From the article:

Taxing millionaires and billionaires more – a position advocated by billionaire Warren Buffett and President Barack Obama – won’t make much of a dent in the national debt or the record federal budget deficits, a new study finds.

“Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation's deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent,” the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s David Logan writes.

You seem to just like being contrary even when it serves no good purpose.

 

[InTheLight]

You seem to just like being contrary even when it serves no good purpose.

Nope. I read the headline and reacted to that. Carpro has a habit of posting "news" stories from cnsnews.com. They are guilty of playing loose with their facts and are definitely slanted right wing. I stand by my challenge: Show me a Democrat that thinks taxing the rich will solve the deficit imbalance.

 

[mandym]

They are guilty of playing loose with their facts

No they are not.

and are definitely slanted right wing.

Which is a good thing

Show me a Democrat that thinks taxing the rich will solve the deficit imbalance.

Then they should drop the paying their fair share and taxing the rich philosophy. But I doubt you are right.

 

[carpro]

Nope. I read the headline and reacted to that. Carpro has a habit of posting "news" stories from cnsnews.com. They are guilty of playing loose with their facts and are definitely slanted right wing. I stand by my challenge: Show me a Democrat that thinks taxing the rich will solve the deficit imbalance.

You're nitpicking and making yourself look foolish contesting a story that is 100% accurate because you don't like the title, even though it is interpretative, but accurate, as well. Well...waaaaaaaahhh

Then you come up with a a stupid request for somneone to prove someone said something no one said they said.

No one needs to "show you a democrat. What you need to do is show some honesty and maturity.

Since you have nothing to contribute, why don't you do the grown up thing and just butt out?:wavey:

 

[convicted1]

Democrats seem to think a tax increase is the cure for all ills. They never talk about the real problem...spending.

Therefore , it's not a "premise" at all, but an illustration of the folly of such thinking.

Yep, the Reps. don't know anything about spending either, do they?? Look at the mess Obama inherited, vs. what GWB inherited.....major difference.

 

[Salty]

False premise. No one is suggesting that taxing the rich will wipe out the deficit.

Just curious, what prompted you to make the above statement.

The bottom line is the US is spending way too much money.

Everyone talks about cutting the military budget. But do they realize how much the military has been cut over the past ten years? Has social services been cut the same % - if any at all - in fact it has probably been increased!!

 

[InTheLight]

You're nitpicking and making yourself look foolish contesting a story that is 100% accurate because you don't like the title, even though it is interpretative, but accurate, as well.

Well how about this for a news headline:

"Clipping Elephant's Toenails Will Not Make them a Better Piano Player"

There's an accurate statement. Is it newsworthy? No. Because NNE suggested that elephants could play the piano.

Likewise, "Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit" is not newsworthy. Accurate statement, but no one suggests that taxing the rich (alone) will solve the deficit.

 

[carpro]

Yep, the Reps. don't know anything about spending either, do they?? Look at the mess Obama inherited, vs. what GWB inherited.....major difference.

Yep it was a mess. Clinton's policies led us into a recession at the end of his term, which Bush quickly headed off with some well thought out tax policies.

Then , with Bush spending like a democrat, he led us into another recession. Which Obama promptly made worse. Obama owns the one we're headed into. So all Obama has shown us is that he can make a bad situation worse.

Thank you for the off topic post. I hope you appreciated the reply.

Now, do you have something to say about the actual topic? Do you think we can end the recession and stop deficit spending by soaking the rich? Or not?

 

[carpro]

Well how about this for a news headline:

"Clipping Elephant's Toenails Will Not Make them a Better Piano Player"

There's an accurate statement. Is it newsworthy? No. Because NNE suggested that elephants could play the piano.

Likewise, "Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit" is not newsworthy. Accurate statement, but no one suggests that taxing the rich (alone) will solve the deficit.

I gave you a chance to actually contribute to the subject and all you do is persist in your whining about what you admit is a true statement.

If you don't think the subject is worthy of discussing, why are you here making a fool of yourself?

You really should stop while you're behind.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Nope. I read the headline and reacted to that. Carpro has a habit of posting "news" stories from cnsnews.com. They are guilty of playing loose with their facts and are definitely slanted right wing. I stand by my challenge: Show me a Democrat that thinks taxing the rich will solve the deficit imbalance.

Revenue increases need to be part of the path to a balanced budget; we also need to reduce spending and pass a balanced budget amendment. I think the main way out is promoting economic growth and part of that is bringing jobs back from overseas, deporting illegal aliens and putting Americans back to work.

 

[carpro]

Just curious, what prompted you to make the above statement.

He doesn't like the title of the story. So...

Like a petulant child who is being ignored, he felt he had to change the subject, so he could continue to play in the snadbox.

 

[convicted1]

Yep it was a mess. Clinton's policies led us into a recession at the end of his term, which Bush quickly headed off with some well thought out tax policies.

Then , with Bush spending like a democrat, he led us into another recession. Which Obama promptly made worse. Obama owns the one we're headed into. So all Obama has shown us is that he can make a bad situation worse.

Thank you for the off topic post. I hope you appreciated the reply.

Now, do you have something to say about the actual topic? Do you think we can end the recession and stop deficit spending by soaking the rich? Or not?

Hey, I was just showing that the Dems. aren't the only ones hwo were spending like "madmen". Taxing the rich would do better than taxing the poor. The Reps. whole agenda is a "trickle down" economics, where the rich have the vast majority of the money, and they in turn, give down to the working class. Basically, the Reps want less than 5% of the population to control the money.

The Reps. would give their left eye to break all working unions, and take away the bargaining rights of the workers. Look at Ohio and Wisconsin, for instance. Ohio voted Kasich in(Rep), and he, with the help of their senate, passed a law that limits their state's employees bargaining rights. Wisconsin did pretty much the same thing. The Reps are for the rich, the Dems. are for the working middle class. The Reps want to get rid of the middle class, and have the extremely rich and extremely poor. Don't believe me?? Read your history books.

My uncle, who's a die hard Rep. told dad the other day it looked like he'd have to vote for Obama, because the Reps are trying to take everything he has.

So, yes, taxing the rich would help some. Taxing the poor wouldn't. Spending "wiser" also would help.