How much in tax revenues would we get from taxing the top 2%...
Draccarlaw
same tax schedule as we had in the '90s?
The Democratic presidential hopefuls implied that our tax revenues
would increase by $200B a year if we increased the tax rates of the
rich and of corporations.
Also, the WoT in Iraq is costing Americans about $150B/year.
I believe that this is very much a tax revenue short fall since our
government has incurred a deficit of about $1000B/year since 2001.
However, simply not being in Iraq and taxing the rich still only
decreases our deficits by $350B/year. There is something, apparently,
that I'm missing. Where is the other $650B going to - assuming that
my tax revenue assumptions are correct.
Neolibertarian
<e9d66dd9-4435-4c24...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Draccarlaw <zutal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How much in tax revenues would we get from taxing the top 2% using the
> same tax schedule as we had in the '90s?
>
> The Democratic presidential hopefuls implied that our tax revenues
> would increase by $200B a year if we increased the tax rates of the
> rich and of corporations.
>
> Also, the WoT in Iraq is costing Americans about $150B/year.
>
> I believe that this is very much a tax revenue short fall since our
> government has incurred a deficit of about $1000B/year since 2001.
You must mean debt, not deficit.
>
> However, simply not being in Iraq and taxing the rich still only
> decreases our deficits by $350B/year. There is something, apparently,
> that I'm missing. Where is the other $650B going to - assuming that
> my tax revenue assumptions are correct.
You're talking zero sum, anyway. Diminishing returns are a great danger
to any estimation.
Entitlements need to be rolled back. Duplicate agencies need to be
eliminated and merged.
Talk of expanding Medicare and healthcare benefits is insane when
considering the US is running a $9.13 trillion debt (which is rapidly
and exponentially growing). Medicare and Social Security together have
an unfunded liability of about $50 trillion as they stand today.
The Iraq War is barely a drop in the bucket to any of that. And, despite
the hysterical nonsense, the Iraq War is necessary to the short and long
term security of the United States, anyway.
Electing a president who is willing to attack these problems ain't
enough to address these problems. Congress has to pull the same way or
it won't get done.
Punitive taxes on the rich, raising capital gains taxes, eliminating the
deficit--without attacking these other problems, might very well signal
the end of the Republic.
Only one candidate claims to be willing to attack these problems, but
there aren't nearly enough Reps and Senators even paying lipservice to
them for it to matter, should he get elected...
--
NeoLibertarian