Its widely believed by both parties in America that debt doesnt matter, and even if it did we can always tax the rich, who's income forms a limitless well of wealth the government can draw from anytime it pleases. Sadly, the numbers just dont add up. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/100-percent-tax-those-earning-500k-or-mo "Recently released statistics from the Internal Revenue Service indicate that taxing away 100 percent of the income of every American who earned $500,000 or more in 2009 would still have left the United States with a massive annual deficit. In fact, in tax year 2009, the combined gross income of all Americans earning $500,000 per year or more was about $1.03 trillion ($1,029,256,075,000.00) of which these Americans paid $256.7 billion ($256,699,499,000.00) in federal income taxes. If the federal government had increased the income-tax rate on Americans earning more than $500,000 to 100 percent in 2009--and seized the remaining $773 billion in income it had not initially taken away from these Americans--that would have closed the federal deficit for the year to $839 billion ($838,988,236,899.90). After taxing away 100 percent of the income of those earning $500,000 or more in 2009, the Obama administration would still have needed to increase taxes on Americans earning less than $500,000 by a total of $839 billion--just to balance federal accounts for the year."
This is the talking point now. Actually, the top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth in this country. To talk about taxable income is deceiving, since the wealthy have used their wealth to alter the tax system in their favor. And it doesn't take into account corporate taxes and loopholes.
If you wanted to tax wealth instead of income you would have to establish a 'net worth' tax. Is that what you would prefer? How percentage of 'net worth' would low income citizens pay?
Please use a credible news source Carcano. You are citing a source that has been known to play fast and loose with the truth and panders to the right wing. How about some source material? Since the CNS cites data published by the IRS, where is the IRS data?
Here's a little related article: Read more: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time...m-means-for-the-global-economy/#ixzz1K793XvnF
LOL, it was proven to you several times that Trump does not shake hands. And the sources were provided to you. Your refusal to acknowledge fact is just a continuation of a very long habit you have my friend. Carcano: I was just out to the IRS web site and the lastest year for which they have published data is 2008 not 2009. I will be doing some more investigation when I have time. But anything from CNS should be heavily questioned and verified before being accepted as truth.
And again I show you PROOF otherwise, are you actually this ignorant? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why is that handshake business so friggin important anyway. Politics should be about... Well politics... Not hygienic habits of some random wannabe GOP nominee.
The data for 2009 is right there front and centre on the IRS website: This is the PDF: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09databk.pdf
That's not what I'm saying. The rich have been gaming the system for some time now, they can afford to pay more. Trickle down is a sick joke.
Thanks Carcano, that is good information. I have not had time to read through it yet. But keep in mind that the nation's income is 14 trillion dollars. And no one is calling on the nation to pay all of its debt overnight or in a year but rather over the course of years. Both the Republican and Democrat plans to pay down the deficit extend over a period of 12 years. And there is no imperative that it be paid down faster than that. Additionally, the best way to put the nations deficit and debt in order is to grow the economy. As economic growth reduces the need and expenses related to the social safetynet while at the same time increasing federal/government tax revenues. Republicans/Tea Partiers are advocating a tax policy that will constrain growth. Democrats are advocating a plan that is growth friendly. Two the major federal expenditure is defense and healthcare. Both need to be trimmed. We pay more than twice what any other industrial country pays for healthcare. That is outrageous and we don't get better healthcare and we don't cover everyone as they do. The healthcare oligipolies need to be broken up as the nation can no longer afford to support it. No more cost shifting. The cost for basic healthcare services must go down. And we must also increase taxes, on the wealthy...those earning over 200k. The road to getting our fiscal house in order demands smart cost cutting and raising revenues. It is not one or the other but both. The Democrats seem to understand that. Republicans, do not seem to understand.
Yep. Or an inheritance tax, or we could strengthen the capital gains tax, etc. It would be more meaningfully progressive, and also avoid these stilted ideas about how the rich just don't have enough money to pay for the government (because their incomes aren't so huge). Would depend on their net worth, and not their income, obviously. A lot of very, very, very wealthy people have fairly small incomes. This is because they already have a giant pile of money, multiple houses, their various living expenses are structured as pay-outs from other funds, etc. So they only need "income" as spending money. As it is not, the citizens with the very highest incomes in the entire country pay among the lowest effective income tax rates (pretty much anyone not living on the edge of poverty or lower pays a higher rate). So there's hardly room to complain that our tax system is too progressive enough in income terms - it's outright regressive, as one nears the upper reaches.
Very true. States are even more regressive that the feds. And as you point out this "taxable income" is after deductions and exemptions. And higher income folks like corporations have ways to reduce their taxable income to negligible amounts. Additionally, the debt is not going to be paid off in a day, a week or a year, it is a long term project. And there is nothing wrong with keeping some level of debt on the books for ever. The nation just needs to get its debt more in line with its income.
In point of fact, the wealthiest 25% of households possess enough assets to outright pay off the entire national debt three times over. I.e., one-third of the wealth of the upper 25% of household would cover the entire national debt, right now. Not the deficit, mind you - the actual accumulated debt. But, yeah, the point is more the growth rate. Would do no good to pay off the debt if we'd just be right back where we started in another decade or two.
Good comments...now what if a person's net worth is tied up in real estate, or dozens of other non-liquid forms? Should they be forced to sell part of their holdings to pay the net worth tax? What will this do to the markets? The only candidate who has proposed a net worth tax is Donald Trump, who wrote about it in his book 'The America We Deserve', published in 2000. http://www.amazon.com/America-Deserve-Donald-Trump-Shiflett/dp/1580631312 What will the Republican Party establishment do when they get around to reading about Trump's 'one time' 14.25% net worth tax on all Americans worth more than ten million dollars? Will they even ALLOW him to run???
I doubt that will ever happen. I think trump just waves his magic stick and tells people that he can make problems vanish. He makes a lot of claims about having simple solutions to complex problems. If solutions were simple, I'm sure somebody bright would have thought of them before.
