The idiot in charge of our central bank

LOL and LOL again. That was good. You have blinders on. Spending - revenue - debt, all related, but you see only tax increases. LOL.

 

It wasn't an issue of what I see.

I simply asked you whether you'd choose lower taxes over higher debt.

You chose what most the pass the buck generation chooses.

 

It's a bit more complex than that, Iriemon. Until the USA debates the concept as to why some get free food, housing, utilities and subsidies (personal and corporate) and others do not, how can we even BEGIN a debate about increasing the taxes. Lower the costs by eliminating the inequalities in the system and then we can have a talk about more taxes.

 

Boo (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hoo. Go have a cry capitalists

 

It is as simple as that.

Until we decide that reducing the deficit is more important that our tax cuts and spending programs, our politicians will pander to our selfish demands, sign the pledges, and run up more debt.

As long as we condition balancing the budget on our pet desires or demands, it will never happen.

 

The government obviously has to shrink a great deal as well. We wouldn't have deficit if we didn't have a GIGANTIC federal power structure spending all that money it doesn't have.

 

I'm not sure of that. I think it could all come crashing down for us in a hurry, depending on what certain foreign powers do.

 

I thought this thread was about the idiot running our central bank.

My bad, I guess.

 

So when conservatives refuse to increase taxes because there is too much spending, and liberals refuse to cut spending because taxes are too low, where does that leave us?

 

That leaves us screwed Iriemon. Buy guns, ammo, rural land, seeds, distillation equipment (booze and water purification) and toiletries for the long term.

 

I agree.

But if one side refuses to compromise on tax increases we aren't going to get a compromise on spending.

 

The other option is to vote folks who won't compromise out of office. No pledge signers, no strict ideologues.

The best hope we have is the "fiscal cliff" and to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

 

You are still on this crap.

NO TAX INCREASE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

In another dicsussion I did some research. I downloaded the tax data base from http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=188060,00.html

It downloads into Excel, and from there you can figure out what a tax increase will do to revenue, assuming peoples income remains constant.

Remember the deficit for 2012 is $1.3 Trillion.

A 100% tax on the top 10% (thats TEN percent, not one percent) only brings in an additional $259 Billion. Take all the taxable income from the top 10% and you don't even come close to balancing the budget, much less impacting the debt.

So much for that "tax the rich" BS.

That extra $1.05 T has to come the other 40% that actually pay taxes . The effective tax rate on the middle class has to be increased to about 24%. The effective rate on the middle class is about 9% right now, so the middle class tax burden is going to almost triple. And thats on top of a 100% tax on the upper 10%.

That kind of tax profile will never work. Anyone that is plugging a tax increase as a solution is just ignorant.

And then there is the debt. Right now the US pays about 2% interest rate on the debt, debt payment is around $320B annually.

If the rate went to 5.4%, all income tax revenue would have to be used to pay the interest on the debt. If the interest rate goes to 10%, all federal revenue cannot pay the interest on the debt.

A rate of 5.4% is not at all uncommon. And we won't be able to significantly decrease the debt anytime soon, certainly not in the next 5 years.

Thats why people say its too late.

 

You have to be careful using tax return data. For example, adjusted gross income is not the same as gross income.

That doesn't fly. The top 10% take about 50% of the total income in the nation. It cannot possibly be that taxing half the income earned is only an additional $259 billion. You've made errors.

Let's see the numbers and computations you did to determine that.

We shall see.

False premise. More than 50% of Americans pay taxes.

If a 100% tax on the top 10% who take 50% of all income yields only $259 billion, how can the rest possibly come up with a trillion?

Saying that taxing a group that takes 50% of all national income only provides $259 billion more revenues is what sounds ignorant.

Maybe those who don't understand what the numbers mean.

Gross personal income is $13.3 trillion.
http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N Table 2.1

The top 10% take about 50% of all national income.
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/graph-of-the-week-the-top-10-income-share-in-usa-1917-2008/

That means the top 10% take in about $6.6 trillion in gross income.

And you're claiming that taxing that group 100% would only bring in $259 billion more revenues?

Something is *way* off here.

 

Easy to solve.

Dont listen to me. Don't listen to any middle man.

I gave you the IRS link, download the data base yourself and run the numbers. You could have don that in less time than it took to create your post.

 

I see. You supposedly calculated figures, but you cannot show what numbers you used, where they are from, or the computations you did to come up with your figures. You just cite a general IRS page with dozens of links to God knows how many pages of data, and say I'm supposed to figure out how you came up with your BS numbers.

I'll file that in the appropriate circular file where it belongs.

Can't say I'm surprised.

 

LOL In other words, you are too lazy or too scared to back up your opinions with actual facts. Are you afraid to look at the IRS data base because you will find that you are completely wrong?

I'll hold your hand and help ....

Go here http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=175800,00.html

Select "Historical Table 3" which is this link http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab3.xls

It loads into Excel and contains all kinds of data such as exemptions and deductions, and who pays taxes.

Figure out what tax rates it takes to balance the budget. Then figure out how to balance the budget and pay down the debt. Make sure you have a reasonable solution!

You will also find that in 2009 total tax deductions on personal income was $2,980,658,293, or roughly $3 Trillion. Taxable income was $5,088,387,918 or roughly $5 Trillion. That means total personal income was about $8 T. Nowhere near your $13 T claim.

You can claim to eliminate deductions - thats a fairy tale. Total tax reform is pie in the sky.

Good luck, if you dare. MAybe if you actually look at data instead of just regurgitating talking point propaganda you might be taken a little more seriously.

 

Not at all. See post above. I source my data, and explain the calculations.

Nope. Just wondered how you calculated your number.

I'll hold your hand and help ....

Go here http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=175800,00.html

Select "Historical Table 3" which is this link http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab3.xls [/quote]

It loads into Excel and contains all kinds of data such as exemptions and deductions, and who pays taxes. [/quote]

"Number of Individual Income Tax Returns, Income, Exemptions and Deductions, Tax, and Average Tax, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Years 2001-2010"

I don't need to figure it out. I already did. I'm just asking you how you did your calculation? What's the big mystery? You said it was so easy. If its so easy why can't you show the calculations? What numbers and calculations did you use to determine that "a 100% tax on the top 10% (thats TEN percent, not one percent) only brings in an additional $259 Billion."

The 13.3 trillion is not my claim. It is the number for gross personal income from the BEA.

Here we are seeing one error. You are confusing taxable AGI with gross personal income. AGI is a adjusted figured for tax purposes. It doesn't include a lot of person income because of various exclusions and exemptions like IRA contributions or 401k deductions.

This table shows some of the differences: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab4.xls

If you start out with AGI, you are missing trillions of potentially taxable income.

Who said anything about tax reform? You claimed "NO TAX INCREASE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM." If that is the claim, we are not looking at whether it is politically feasible but whether it is possible. So you start and the total amount of income, not an adjusted amount that already carve out a bunch of income.

We're starting to see why you've been so coy about showing your calculations since you have already exposed a number of errors.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you came up with that $259 billion figure.

 

It is easy to calculate, but you will question every number ad infinitum. In 10 minutes you can do your own calculation and understand everything first hand using the source data. Why depend upon me when you can see it first hand and have complete understanding?

In the IRS data, it includes AGI and all deductions/exemptions. I added the 2 to get total income of $8T.

Even in your IRS ref, it shows $10T total income for 2005, far below the $13T you used from the BEA. And 2005 was at the height of the housing bubble and before the recession.

I question your BEA number. There must be some other revenue in it besides personal income.

Even with tax reform, on a total national income of $8T, an annual deficit of over $1T, and a national debt currently at $16T, no tax rate that will not destroy the economy will solve the problem.

This is so simple. Take 10 minutes and do it yourself. Then you will have total confidence in the result.

Give it a shot. Prove me wrong.

 

Sure I may question the numbers you use. That is the whole idea.

I've presented my calculation showing the top 10% make more than enought to completely balance the budget and without 100% taxation. Sourced to figures from the BEA and my calculations presented.

You've presented a number you are apparently afraid to back up because it might be questioned.

That doesn't give you the full picture of gross personal income. Exemptions and deductions do not included 401k contributions, for example. Or people who didn't file returns.

$10T was 2005. $13.3T is current.

Write them a letter and tell them you thing the numbers they use to calculate GDP are wrong.

The BEA's number is total gross personal income. It is the IRS's number that is adjusted.

The old "raise taxes will destroy the economy" myth. Proved wrong multiple times.

We had a 91% top tax rate in the 1950s and 70% in the 1960s and the economy kicked ass. We don't even need to do that. Even if we accept tht gross income is $3T lower than the BEA says it is, at $10T, the income of the top 10% is about $5T. We could completely eliminate the deficit with a 26 percentage point tax rate increase. Since their effective rate is less than 25% now, we could balance the budget completely without cutting spending by taxing half the income of the top 10%. And as the economy recovers from the recession and revenues grow that would provide a surpulus.

I'm not saying that is the optimal or practical solution, but arguing it is false to claim that we could not balance the budget simply with taxes on the rich.

If it is so simple, again, why have you for 5 post now dodged presenting your simple calculations? You could have written an essay about it in the time you've spend dodging.
I have no idea how you could have come up with such obviously errenous numbers and couldn't hazard to guess.

 

And I agree here, though if we want smart politicians who will compromise and make necessary changes, we simply must get beyond the two parties.

Thus, we're doomed. Stock up on water and Campbell's now!

 

We've had two parties in the past that were able to compromise to do what was best for the country.

It isn't the two parties that changed, it was the folks that make them up and the folks we the people elect to office.

 

Erm, of course the parties have changed, specifically because "the folks we the people elect to office" have changed. The two parties keep running the kinds of morons who don't deserve the office they're being handed on a platter by virtue of the ticket they happen to be running on.

We need more choices, choices like Ralph Nader, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, just to name a few. But we're trapped, and people like you help us remain trapped. Our system wasn't designed to be dominated by two political parties, yet so it is today.

 

They also run thoughtful, moderate folk who will compromise. Who keep getting defeated by we the people who elect Tea Partiers.

We have choicing. We are just choosing partisan ideologoues.

 

Of course he was. Central planning doesn't work. Just ask the Soviets.