60 minutes = $188 million in new debt

[trish]

So far the Republican deficit reduction measures do nothing but serve their political agenda. Effective measures will have to increase revenues. There are 300 million people in this country. 1.5% (i.e. 4.5 million of them) have an annual income of more than $250,000.00. That's a total of 1.125 trillion dollars. If each one contributed 35% of their income to taxes that would be 394 billion dollars which is more than 25% of the current deficit. Note this is a very conservative calculation because many of those 1.5% have an income that exceeds $250000 by hundreds of millions. We cannot in good conscious ignore the revenue side of the equation if we are seriously inclined to reduce the deficit. There's the rub. Republicans are not at all serious about deficit reduction; they are serious about the upcoming elections. Republicans lied about the 48% who do in fact pay taxes and they continue to perpetuate the lie even after it's been debunked and this do this while GE paid zero, that's right, ZERO taxes. Have you seen this:

[Cuchulain]

Lately, CONs seem to love to quote JFK on tax cuts. They never bother to mention that the top tax rate in Kennedy's time was 91%. Today it's 35%.

Bruce Bartlett over at the Fiscal Times says "insofar as we are concerned about the debt and deficits, the government’s revenue-raising capacity is also a critical factor. Although Republicans simply deny that tax cuts have any effect on the deficit, anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that this is ridiculous. According to the historical tables, federal revenues will only consume 14.4 percent of GDP this year – the lowest percentage since 1950. The postwar average is about 18.5 percent and there were many very prosperous years when revenues were considerably higher. In the late 1990s, they averaged more than 20 percent of GDP, which was a key reason why we ran budget surpluses."
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...as-Budget.aspx

CONs want to lower the deficit AND taxes at the same time. There's only one way to do that - gut what's left of the New Deal. No more Medicare. No more Social Security. While we're at it, let's scrap all those expensive govt agencies like the EPA, NLRB, OSHA, DOE, FDA, etc. And of course we need to dump silly programs like Unemployment Comp as well. That's the CON wet dream. That's the future the repub party strives towards; a nation with a small class of 'haves' and a huge class of 'have-nots' who'll be too frightened to complain - American feudalism.

No thanks, not in MY America.

[Faldur]

So far the Republican deficit reduction measures do nothing but serve their political agenda.

I completely agree, to date they have done nothing more than implement limp-wristed attempts to try and appease real fiscal conservatives.

There are 300 million people in this country. 1.5% (i.e. 4.5 million of them) have an annual income of more than $250,000.00. That's a total of 1.125 trillion dollars. If each one contributed 35% of their income to taxes that would be 394 billion dollars which is more than 25% of the current deficit.

That bracket of wage earner currently contributes 33% of their income, are you saying we need to raise their taxes an additional 2%? Or are you saying we should raise it an additional 35%?

We cannot in good conscious

We cannot in good conscious continue to let 1/2 of the working population continue to demand that the rest of america work harder so they can reap more benefits. Never before has a free society had so many dead beats attempt to extort hard working, responsible citizens.

Republicans are not at all serious about deficit reduction; they are serious about the upcoming elections.

In total agreement with you.

Republicans lied about the 48% who do in fact pay taxes and they continue to perpetuate the lie even after it's been debunked

Total BS.. (Note: Liberal news sources provided)
Tax Policy Center stats
CNN Money Article
CBS News on Taxes

and this do this while GE paid zero, that's right, ZERO taxes.

ZERO? They received a $3.2 billion dollar refund. Yes, earned $5.1 billion dollars in the US and payed <$3.2 billion>. Do you not find it a little strange that Jeffrey R. Immelt is chairman of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness? GE should be fined and penalized for all the taxes they avoided, its an absolute travesty.

[trish]

That bracket of wage earner currently contributes 33% of their income, are you saying we need to raise their taxes an additional 2%? Or are you saying we should raise it an additional 35%?

Can you do any math at all??? What is 1.5% of 300 million people. If they each have an income of at least 250 thousand dollars, what is the minimal total income? Now take 35% of that. What do you get? Are you clear now? If everyone in that and higher brackets actually paid their taxes they would cover at the very least 26% of the deficit. Once again, this is a very conservative estimate, since it assumes no one makes more than 250K. The moral is: tax revenue is a significant "deficit reducer". Cutting them for this and higher brackets is devastatingly counterproductive to your stated goals. Raising them and eliminating loop holes will only reduce the deficit further. Try it. An increase of 5% for this an higher brackets will cover (again conservatively) at the very least 30% of the deficit.

We cannot in good conscious continue to let 1/2 of the working population continue to demand that the rest of america work harder so they can reap more benefits.

We agree. We should tax capital gains.

[Faldur]

Can you do any math at all???

Yes, I'm actually quite good at math. It's speling that i kund of suk at.

If they each have an income of at least 250 thousand dollars, what is the minimal total income? Now take 35% of that. What do you get? Are you clear now?

So, the group your are currently taxing at 33% you want to tax at 35%. Big deal, I proposed raising their taxes to 36% but if you only want 35% so be it.

We agree. We should tax capital gains.

Redundancy is getting a little old but again for your benefit.. we already tax capitol gains, short-term gains at ordinary income rates and long-term at 15%. Are you saying you want to raise the capitol gains tax? And if so how much?

Its just dishonest to say we don't tax capitol gains. And you point out that some manage to use loop holes to avoid paying taxes, and I am 100% behind closing those. But I do not consider a 1st mortgage deduction, charitable gifts, and direct business losses loop holes.

You will never convince me that growing the size of government by 10% each and every year is necessary, or even affordable more to the point. We have a serious addictive spending problem, and until someone takes the Master Card away from the spoiled brat politicians no amount of increased taxes will ever balance the ledger.

[hippifried]

Redundancy is getting a little old but again for your benefit.. we already tax capitol gains, short-term gains at ordinary income rates and long-term at 15%. Are you saying you want to raise the capitol gains tax? And if so how much?

Oh really? I think not. Redundancy doesn't make it true. Just memetic.
From the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html

Capital gains and deductible capital losses are reported on Form 1040, Schedule D (PDF). If you have a net capital gain, that gain may be taxed at a lower tax rate than the ordinary income tax rates. The term "net capital gain" means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than the sum of your net short-term capital loss and any long-term capital loss carried over from the previous year. Currently net capital gain is generally taxed at rates no higher than 15%, although, for 2008 through 2010, some or all net capital gain may be taxed at 0%, if it would otherwise be taxed at lower rates.



There are three exceptions:

1. The taxable part of a gain from selling Section 1202 qualified small business stock is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.
2. Net capital gain from selling collectibles (such as coins or art) is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.
3. The part of any net capital gain from selling Section 1250 real property that is required to be recaptured in excess of straight-line depreciation is taxed at a maximum 25% rate.

You need better information sources. The ones you use are as clueless as you are.

[Faldur]

You need better information sources. The ones you use are as clueless as you are.

Hippi, your supporting my argument. Short-term gain is taxed at ordinary income and long-term at 15%, (raises to 20% in 2012).

Are you telling me you want to raise the capital gains tax rate on the 10% - 15% tax bracket? Brother your talking my language!! Lets raise that tax on them damn free loaders!

Capital gains tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image" title="Obverse side of the Great Seal of the United States"><img alt="Obverse side of the Great Seal of the United States" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/100px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/100px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png

[hippifried]

So you can't read, don't know what you're looking at anyway, & don't care because you're boing to spin anything around to fit your preconceived memetic misconceptions.

Gee... Why am I not surprized?

[Faldur]

So you can't read, don't know what you're looking at anyway,

Lol, I read quite well my friend. Show me the error of my ways?

[hippifried]

Pretty disingenuous, spud, but here's the error of your ways. The 3 exceptions that get you past the 15% naximum rate are:

1. The taxable part of a gain from selling Section 1202 qualified small business stock is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.

2. Net capital gain from selling collectibles (such as coins or art) is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.

3. The part of any net capital gain from selling Section 1250 real property that is required to be recaptured in excess of straight-line depreciation is taxed at a maximum 25% rate.

Notice, if you can, that there's nothing about short term gains. The exceptions are more likely to be long term than short. This was in the other post that you wouldn't or couldn't read. This isn't from Wikipedia. It comes from the IRS web site that's linked in the other post that you wouldn't or couldn't read.

You don't know taxes.
You don't know money.
You don't know what you're talking about.
If you ever had any credence at all, you tossed it away with this thread.