• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

Can Taxing the Rich Erase the Deficit? - The Wealth Report - WSJ
“If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.”

That means taxing the top earners at 70% which, combined with state and local taxes, means the top earners would be giving up 85% of their income in New York, California and other high-tax states.

Given that Congress even under Democratic control could not accept a top-rate increase from 35% to 39.6%, a 70% rate seems like highly unlikely, if not fantasy, at this point.
Click to expand...

An insightful reader post on Megan McArdle’s blog on the Atlantic uses IRS data to figure out how much money the government would raise by taxing certain wealth levels. He says a 45% rate on incomes of more than $1 million would generate $31 billion, while an even more progressive tax, with rates of 50%, 60%, 70% on incomes of $500,000, $5 million, $10 million respectively would generate an added $133 billion.

That is roughly 10% of the current annual budget deficit.

“My point is just that I don’t see how deficits this large can be closed with income taxes on the rich, even at marginal rates far higher than anything we’ve seen in the post-1986 era,” the reader says.

And rich people can always move and shift their income, which would reduce the amount of tax revenue raised.
Click to expand...
 
Joe Steel said:
If you're looking for few short paragraphs of simple ideas, I can't provide it. The solution is far more complicated than that. Make no mistake, though, it starts with tax expenditures. See A Framework for Deficit Reduction: Principles and Cautions
Click to expand...

from your link...
Craft a deficit-reduction plan that is balanced and inclusive, affecting all parts of the budget and with the savings split about 50-50 over time between program reductions and revenue increases.
Click to expand...
For someone who wanted to post proof that taxing the rich and not cutting spending is the way to go, you seem to have failed miserably here.
 
StillBallin75 said:
This is a purely a philosophical exercise...but where do we draw the line between when elected officials should act in our interests, and when elected officials should act against our own opinion for "the public good"?
Click to expand...

Academic indeed. In America, elected officials may ignore the wishes and interests of the People with impunity. They are not constrained in any way in what they may do. No such line as you mentioned can be drawn.
 
Whovian said:
from your link...

For someone who wanted to post proof that taxing the rich and not cutting spending is the way to go, you seem to have failed miserably here.
Click to expand...

As I said, no simple solution exists but any reasonable solution must include tax increases.
 
Whovian said:
Still waiting for you to show us a credible source that indicates taxing the rich so they 'retain a bit less' will solve the debt and deficit issues in this country, WITHOUT changing spending habits of the government.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/business/economy/13leonhardt.html?_r=1
And just like that, on Jan. 1, 2013, the Clinton-era tax rates would return.

This change, by itself, would solve about 75 percent of the deficit problem over the next five years. The rest could come from spending cuts, both for social programs and the military.
Click to expand...

But the NYT is MSM so screw it.
 
Whovian said:
Can Taxing the Rich Erase the Deficit? - The Wealth Report - WSJ
Click to expand...

Your link is woefully inadequate. It's merely insinuation and speculation.

It's also an transparent attempt to distort the issue:

That means taxing the top earners at 70% which, combined with state and local taxes, means the top earners would be giving up 85% of their income in New York, California and other high-tax states.
Click to expand...

Income tax rates are marginal rates not average rates. No one would be taxed at anywhere near 85% of income.
 
Erod said:
You mean after the GOP took over Congress for the first time in 40 years?

Yep.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything?? You mean when they took over and the Bush tax cuts still were not in effect? Keep up with the conversation, please. Who is in power does not have anything to do with the discussion.
 
Joe Steel said:
Yes.

The United States ranks 29 of 34 OECD countries in level of taxation and we're below our historical level of taxation as a percentage of GDP. The most obvious and easiest solution to our deficit problem is raising taxes.



Nothing of the sort has been proven. In fact, the opposite is true. The rich have seen their share of the national income increase and their rate of taxation decrease in recent years. While we may not be able to solve the deficit problem entirely by taxing them more, taxing them more will go a long way toward the solution.
Click to expand...

What national income? Seems to me you just told us who you think owns income.
 
Joe Steel said:
Academic indeed. In America, elected officials may ignore the wishes and interests of the People with impunity. They are not constrained in any way in what they may do. No such line as you mentioned can be drawn.
Click to expand...

Not true. If our elected officials cross the line, they can be recalled, or voted out once their current term expires.
 
Joe Steel said:
As I said, no simple solution exists but any reasonable solution must include tax increases.
Click to expand...

On everyone then, and not just the wealthy.
Even liberal NPR sees that a big part of the problem is with those who pay nothing.

Why Soaking The Rich Won't Solve The Deficit : NPR

The ever-expanding number of credits and tax breaks for the poor and middle class have translated into a record number of people with modest means paying no net taxes at all. The discrepancy between the large amount of taxes paid by the rich and the lack of taxes paid by people with low incomes is only going to grow, given President Obama's vow not to raise taxes on the middle class.
That might be good politics, and it's arguably a fair way to redistribute wealth. But a Robin Hood tax code will make it increasingly difficult to address mounting deficits, experts warn.
The top 1 percent of earners took home 23 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income in 2007. That sounds like a huge haul, but these top earners also paid a huge share of federal income taxes — just over 40 percent that year, according to the Tax Foundation.
Relying on a narrow tax base can lead to uncertainty for tax collectors — even if that base consists of top earners. That's certainly been the case in states such as California and New York. Their taxes fall disproportionately on people with big incomes. During recent recessions — when top incomes, stock options and capital gains all dropped — those states have seen their revenues go into a nosedive.
"The rich just don't have enough money," says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and one of the paper's authors. "You either have to tax more of the income distribution, or find other sources of revenue."One reason the rich are paying proportionately more is that lower-income households are paying less — or nothing at all. Last year, a record 51.6 million filers — 36 percent of the total — paid no income taxes.
That's thanks to breaks and benefits such as the earned income tax credit. The number of credits and deductions — for children, for students, for Prius owners — is increasing. Williams estimates that 47 percent of single filers and 38 percent of joint filers will owe no taxes this year.What does it mean when more than a third of the nation is paying no income taxes? You can look at it two ways.
Leonard Burman, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, suggests that today's tax code is not just about taxes, but transferring wealth. Families at all income levels are receiving credits and breaks — with top earners still getting a higher share, he says. So there's nothing wrong with those closer toward the bottom getting credits, particularly ones that reward work.
But others will argue that having such a huge percentage of the population paying no taxes means there's less restraint on government. If it's not coming out of your pocket, you may demand more services — and you'll certainly protest when programs are being cut. [/B]"Everybody should pay something so we don't fall into this trap of the free lunch," says Ronald C. Fisher, an economist at Michigan State.
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
There are but two sides to the ledger and both must be dealt with. We do need more revenue. We do need spending cuts.
Click to expand...

history shows us that we can't give the government enough money. the more they got, the more they spent.

so one side of the ledger needs to be dealt with more then the other.
 
ARealConservative said:
history shows us that we can't give the government enough money. the more they got, the more they spent.

so one side of the ledger needs to be dealt with more then the other.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We need to do both and we need to do both now. To place us in a straightjacket and pretend that one is holier than the others is a step towards budgetary failure.
 
Whovian said:
interesting read... thanks for posting. Personally, I'm not generally one to subscribe to the belief that if we simply stick out heads in the sand, the problem will go away. That assumes that spending remains as it is, without significantly increasing. Not likely under Obama.
Click to expand...

I would agree. Now is a good time to make drastic cuts, but realize that there is an opportunity to raise revenues a bit if necessary to get the budget balanced in the long run.


Barbbtx said:
On everyone then, and not just the wealthy.
Even liberal NPR sees that a big part of the problem is with those who pay nothing.

Why Soaking The Rich Won't Solve The Deficit : NPR
Click to expand...

I told you NPR kicks ass, man.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I disagree. We need to do both and we need to do both now. To place us in a straightjacket and pretend that one is holier than the others is a step towards budgetary failure.
Click to expand...

we can do both, but one needs to be focused on more then the other.

massive cuts in spending, not massive hikes in taxation is what is needed.
 
whysoserious said:
I would agree. Now is a good time to make drastic cuts, but realize that there is an opportunity to raise revenues a bit if necessary to get the budget balanced in the long run.




I told you NPR kicks ass, man.
Click to expand...

LOL, I tried to ignore all the BS about redistribution of wealth being a good thing etc.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem - The Washington Post



Oh, the fickle American public...

I've been saying this for awhile now. Maybe it's time to stop blaming the government for everything and start being introspective about ourselves, the People. Our government is only as competent/effective as the electorate that chooses them.
Click to expand...

There's always been a clear disconnect aong the public. We see it here and we see it in health care reform.
 
I really dislike polls.

However it is amazing to see, that republicans all chest thump about "the people want this, the people want that, the people dislike this, it's being rammed down their throats...."

Then when polls say the people want something they dont want... Then "the people" are what? Stupid? Misguided? Or when republicans refer to "the people" are they really just referring to their supporters.... I just wanna get that clear...

The only polls republicans like are obamas approval ratings and the approval ratings of his health care bill...

All other polls are "invalid" ;)
 
Jetboogieman said:
I really dislike polls.

However it is amazing to see, that republicans all chest thump about "the people want this, the people want that, the people dislike this, it's being rammed down their throats...."

Then when polls say the people want something they dont want... Then "the people" are what? Stupid? Misguided? Or when republicans refer to "the people" are they really just referring to their supporters.... I just wanna get that clear...

The only polls republicans like are obamas approval ratings and the approval ratings of his health care bill...

All other polls are "invalid" ;)
Click to expand...

Polls are purely at the mercy of those whom are polled.

If I walk into Death Row and take a poll on the death penalty, it might not be a pure reflection of public sentiment.

Much like the American media seldom ventures outside of the northeast when conducting their polls.
 
Erod said:
Polls are purely at the mercy of those whom are polled.

If I walk into Death Row and take a poll on the death penalty, it might not be a pure reflection of public sentiment.

Much like the American media seldom ventures outside of the northeast when conducting their polls.
Click to expand...

There's also selective reading, as jetboggieman points out. :coffeepap

Jet, I need another pot.
 
Erod said:
Polls are purely at the mercy of those whom are polled.

If I walk into Death Row and take a poll on the death penalty, it might not be a pure reflection of public sentiment.

Much like the American media seldom ventures outside of the northeast when conducting their polls.
Click to expand...

Got any evidence for that assertion?
 
I also dislike polls, especially ones where it indicates people want their cake, while eating it too.

Sure, we all want that, but we need to be realistic too.
 
Erod said:
Polls are purely at the mercy of those whom are polled.

If I walk into Death Row and take a poll on the death penalty, it might not be a pure reflection of public sentiment.

Much like the American media seldom ventures outside of the northeast when conducting their polls.
Click to expand...

And thank you for proving my point.

And by the way, I have said it many times, America is in the wake of a rather big crisis, and whether its tax increases, or entitlement cuts, no one seems willing to sacrifice...

But I will point out your hypocrisy when I see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom