johnlockedema said:
ml1 said:
the link is above.
why do you not believe me? do I ever make **** up and post it here?
I do believe you, and thanks for the link. But I replied, and then when the thread refreshed I saw your link.
But again, if we taxed the rich 100% all it does is take away this years deficit, not the 16 trillion we have.
johnlockedema said:
sac, taxing the 1% at a 100% rate wouldn't solve a thing, you do know. Having to borrow close to half the money the government spends every year is the problem.
ml1 said:
you were mistaken. how hard would it be to admit that and just let it go?
johnlockedema said:
I'll say again, taxing the 1% 100% does nothing to reduce the existing debt. Is that such a difficult concept to understand?
Yes, it would stop adding to it.
But would that happen?
Maybe in a Kool Aid dream.
ml1 said:
I'm guessing that became a talking point so that people stop focusing on the 1% or the 5%. because a substantial increase in the top marginal rate to say 45% up to $1MM and 50% over $1MM would actually start to put a dent in the deficit that would be meaningful. and those are increases that within the realm of possibility. but by saying it would do "nothing" even at 100% you get people to think it's useless to raise rates on the super wealthy.
By "deficit we already have" I assume you mean the DEBT. The DEFICIT is the difference between revenue and spending in one budget year. The debt is the accumulated result of all the years of (mostly) deficit. I KNOW that you know the difference but many people don't, so it is helpful to use the correct terminology... unless, of course, you aren't REALLY interested in educating people but just trying to make a political point.johnlockedema said:
C'mon, you just said that taxing the 1% at 100% does nothing to reduce the deficit we already have.
johnlockedema said:
ml1 said:
I'm guessing that became a talking point so that people stop focusing on the 1% or the 5%. because a substantial increase in the top marginal rate to say 45% up to $1MM and 50% over $1MM would actually start to put a dent in the deficit that would be meaningful. and those are increases that within the realm of possibility. but by saying it would do "nothing" even at 100% you get people to think it's useless to raise rates on the super wealthy.
C'mon, you just said that taxing the 1% at 100% does nothing to reduce the deficit we already have.
I'm on record here, many times, agreeing with Rattner about aligning carried interest tax rates with regular income for the fat cat hedgies (like Rattner).
sac said:
I KNOW that you know the difference
johnlockedema said:
sac, you're right, I should be more careful to distinguish the debt and the deficit.
But my point remains true-taxing the 1% at a 100% would help the deficit, but do nothing about the existing debt of $16 trillion dollars.
ml1 said:
johnlockedema said:
sac, you're right, I should be more careful to distinguish the debt and the deficit.
But my point remains true-taxing the 1% at a 100% would help the deficit, but do nothing about the existing debt of $16 trillion dollars.
but that's not the point you were originally making. and you pretend that it was your point all along.
this is like a bad Abbot & Costello routine.
johnlockedema said:
sac, taxing the 1% at a 100% rate wouldn't solve a thing, you do know. Having to borrow close to half the money the government spends every year is the problem.
wharfrat said:
Bruce Bartlett weighs in on the idea that tax cuts for the "job creators" and cutting the budget to eliminate the deficit during a recession is a bad idea. Why is anyone suggesting otherwise?
"The economy continues to conform to textbook Keynesianism. We still need more aggregate demand, and the Republican idea that tax cuts for the rich will save us becomes more ridiculous by the day. People will long remember Mitt Romney’s politically tone-deaf attack on half the nation’s population for being losers, leeches, and moochers because he accurately articulated the right-wing worldview."
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/
Alfa75 said:
The question remains: why are so many in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, so smitten with the deficit reduction meme? Methinks that the Pete Peterson/Erskine Bowles/Alan Simpson crowd have triupmphed - Wall Street really wants to get its hands on Social Security. But it still boggles why so many are falling for the idea that the national budget is like a household budget and needs to be balanced.
Tom_R said:
Tom,
Why only the wealthy/high income folk?
TomR
ml1 said:
that is factually untrue. taxing the 1% at 100% would eliminate all of the projected FY13 federal budget deficit. I'm not suggesting we do it.
but we should have our facts straight.
Mar 26, 2024 at 8:49am
(No Fees) Hire Live in & Live out Elderly Care Aides
Mar 24, 2024 at 2:09am
Mar 23, 2024 at 4:24pm
MF914 FT Live In Nanny for 3 (May Start)
Mar 26, 2024 at 4:20pm
RF512 FT Nanny for Infant (April Start)
Mar 26, 2024 at 1:35pm
MTF500 FT Weekday Live In Nanny for 1 Infant (July Start)
Mar 25, 2024 at 9:17pm
WF602 Full Time Nanny for 1 Infant (May Start)
Mar 25, 2024 at 8:40pm
Mar 25, 2024 at 5:27pm
Mar 25, 2024 at 4:39pm
Mar 24, 2024 at 4:44pm
But of course your original assertion was completely wrong. And ml1 proved that with facts. You really are the personification of today's GOP.