Gov Scott...

[dbucfan]

But until you go to the real meat and potatoes of the deficit - I.E. the Bush Tax cuts to the rich (and no, we're not talking about the corporate tax - they're two separate things), the defense budget, Medicare, and yes, Social Security - you're never going to balance the budget.

The tax cuts don't mean squat - that is readily adjusted and won't make a hill of beans until the outgoing money is slowed.  If you doubled what is paid under the current system you don't get it done.  It is - and has been - a spending problem.  Find someone who doesn't play the rich vs poor - someone who gets we are in this together - and everyone pays something.  Then sort out what you have and what you can spend.  And then STOP spending. 

And tax loopholes are a part of the mess - along with ethanol, cap and trade, duplication of efforts/responsibility.  Show me someone who gets it more than Ryan, or Simpson-Bowles - and have them run - I will back them.  PS - that 250K a year being rich is a stupid number, I don't know who is slhitting whom - but that is flat out a stupid point of division brought to us by those who wish to redistribute wealth.  Just my .02

[John Galt?]

a few FACTS

FACT-Capital Gains Revenues INCREASED after the Cap gains tax was cut

FACT-Tax Revenues are a function of Economic Growth NOT Tax rates

FACT- The Bush Tax Cuts on the top two tax brackets had 1/5th the revenue impact of creating a 10% bracket (formerly 15%)

FACT-The Bush Tax cuts on the top brackets had 1/6th the revenue impact of the Earned Income Credit and the Increased Child and Dependent Credits.

FACT- over 40% of people pay ZERO or NEGATIVE taxes.

FACT-the top 1% of tax payers had Adjusted Gross Income of $1.685 trillion and paid $392 billion in taxes. Increasing their tax rate by even 20% (way more than the Bush Tax Cut) would only generate $332 billion-the deficit is FIVE TIMES THAT AMOUNT!!!

FACT-The top 1% of tax payers paid more in taxes than the bottom 95% COMBINED.

FACT- Total Negative Tax Returns (returns where people not only paid ZERO in taxes but got a check for tax credits) is expected to be over $220 Billion!!!

FACT-changing tax rates has often been followed by an opposite effect in Tax Revenues (i.e. Tax Revenues went UP after the Reagan and Bush Jr. Tax Cuts, Tax Increases have often been followed by REDUCED tax Revenues)

FACT- Spending has almost NEVER fallen below budget estimates. That is if the budget calls for $xxx. in spending then at least $xxx will be spent, never less.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/24955.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/

[spartan]

This entire thread is exactly what's wrong with this country. The divisive partisan politics has made it impossible to get anything done. The Dems block the Repubs from doing what they need to do. The Repubs block the Dems from doing what they need to do. Nothing gets done.

Does government spending need to be curtailed? Absolutely.
Do cuts in social systems need to be made? Certainly.
Does the corporate tax rate need to be lowered? Yes.

But until you go to the real meat and potatoes of the deficit - I.E. the Bush Tax cuts to the rich (and no, we're not talking about the corporate tax - they're two separate things), the defense budget, Medicare, and yes, Social Security - you're never going to balance the budget.

Neither Obama's or Paul Ryan's budget suggestions make the necessary cuts to do much damage to the deficit - which means we're going to still be talking about this through the 2012 election.

The Republicans think by ending all entitlements that everything will be solved. It won't be. They think the problem is teachers and firefighters and police unions. It's not.

And by the way  - NO ONE CARES. People care more about jobs and the economy than they do about government spending.  Yes, I know one does relate to the other but most people don't understand that.

To me, Obama should start with companies that export their jobs overseas. Significantly lower the corporate tax rate for those companies who don't outsource. Hike it up for those that do. Make it fiscally more economical to employee American workers.

That's a start.

Of course, it will never happen. Too many Republican campaign contributors would be adversely effected.

And there we are....back to the original point - because of party politics - we will never get anything done.

I think the entire political system may be on the verge of collapse. Just look at these Tea Party whack jobs that are getting elected like Bachman.

Some believe the world will end in 2012...it just might if someone like Bachman or Palin get the White House.

If you think the "meat and potatoes" of the deficit are the Bush tax cuts for the "rich" you are sadly, and badly mistaken.

Also, railing against partisan party politics is fine, but then calling the people you don't agree with "whackjobs" without even so much as taking a breath sounds like the President when he is willing to work with the Republican then reams off a long list of things he is not going to "compromise" on; which was essentially anything not called raise taxes.

Pausing for breath myself, I do realize that a comprehensive solution will require an "all of the above" type solution, but you need to recognize the depth and scope of the problem. Right now the Senate Democrats and the President are failing to do just that. To deal with the deficit using the one and only tool they have proposed, tax hikes, would require 100% of the income of every American FAMILY earning more than 100k. When I say family, I mean just that. The Govt would have to seize every penny earned per household, including married couples/partners above 100k of income. Oh, and that 100K would still be taxed at the regular rates, and you would still be responsible for local and State taxes, and it assumes the economy doesn't tank despite most Americans losing just about every ounce of their spending power.

[spartan]

Funny enough, this just in :

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/18/taxes-pay-debt-unless-rates-150-percent/

"The estimate from the nonpartisan Public Notice demonstrated this point. It showed that if Washington wanted to hoist tax rates to actually cover spending, the top tier rate would go from 35 to 88 percent; the middle tier from 25 to 63 percent and the lowest from 10 to 25 percent"

[CBWx2]

a few FACTS

FACT-Capital Gains Revenues INCREASED after the Cap gains tax was cut

Not true. Captal gains revenue sees an initial bump after a cut, but it is not a sustained increase.
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/01/28/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr/

FACT-Tax Revenues are a function of Economic Growth NOT Tax rates

Exactly, which is why raising the top income tax does not hurt the economy. Real GDP growth coincides with a higher tax rate. A reason for this may be that by increasing the tax rate, you decrease net profits, which forces companies to have to actually increase production in order to increase profits. The more people working, the more demand there is, which leads to economic growth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/do-tax-cuts-really-help-t_b_73800.html

FACT- The Bush Tax Cuts on the top two tax brackets had 1/5th the revenue impact of creating a 10% bracket (formerly 15%)

FACT-The Bush Tax cuts on the top brackets had 1/6th the revenue impact of the Earned Income Credit and the Increased Child and Dependent Credits.

FACT- Total Negative Tax Returns (returns where people not only paid ZERO in taxes but got a check for tax credits) is expected to be over $220 Billion!!!

That's because the bottom 2 brackets make up nearly 50% of the total population, whereas the top 2 brackets make up about 5%.

FACT- over 40% of people pay ZERO or NEGATIVE taxes.

This is a direct consequence to the wealth disparity in America. About 30 years ago that number was around 20%.

FACT-the top 1% of tax payers had Adjusted Gross Income of $1.685 trillion and paid $392 billion in taxes. Increasing their tax rate by even 20% (way more than the Bush Tax Cut) would only generate $332 billion-the deficit is FIVE TIMES THAT AMOUNT!!!

Those who are arguing for the budget to be fixed in one year have an unrealistic grasp on the issue. No one is suggesting that raising the top end tax rate is going to put the 2012 budget in balance, but it's a start down the right path.

FACT-The top 1% of tax payers paid more in taxes than the bottom 95% COMBINED.

That's because they made more money than 95% of the population combined. Why shouldn't they pay more when they make more? The bottom 95% of Americans account for 28% of the wealth in the U.S. The top 5% of the country command 72% of the nation's wealth. The top 1% account for 42%.

FACT-changing tax rates has often been followed by an opposite effect in Tax Revenues (i.e. Tax Revenues went UP after the Reagan and Bush Jr. Tax Cuts, Tax Increases have often been followed by REDUCED tax Revenues)

offset
Let's start with Reagan. Is that increase in tax revenue adjusted to offset the effects of inflation and population growth? Because both of those things will naturally cause an increase in revenue. When the rate is adjusted to these factors, real revenue growth under Reagan increased by 19% from 1980 to 1988. While that is certainly growth, one must also factor in that real tax revenue grew by 24% from 1972 to 1980, so essentially, the rate of growth actually decreased under Reagan.

Now on to Bush. Revenues did not increase under G.W. Bush after his tax cuts were initiated.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

FACT- Spending has almost NEVER fallen below budget estimates. That is if the budget calls for $xxx. in spending then at least $xxx will be spent, never less.

Which is why you must look for ways to cut spending. But cutting spending and raising taxes are not mutually exclusive. It would stand to reason that both ought to be considered to curb deficits.

[Ladyfan]

One thing I know for sure.  Economic theories are like voodoo.  You really cannot test them in the real world...too many obstacles...you'd have to have a king or an emperor to set up the fiscal framework ( that would handle partisan bickering for sure, eh") to balance the ole budge t will never happen, nor will anyolne get even remotely close to what they think is the "right" program.  Higher taxes?  Cut the s__t out of entitlements?  Estate tax?  Ban Abortion?  Let the rich rule?  You pick it someone will mouth off til the cows come home.

We don't know what we are talking about.  Too many variables and no real evidence of anything....each situation is so different than the present  to which we are comparing it to either pro or con...

Face it.  We are in the hands of people who may or may not be as smart as anyone of us....but I can hong kong promise THEY DON'T KNOW JACK ABOUT HOW TO FIX THE ECONOMY.  Is that hard to take?   Damn right it is.  But that is how I see it.

Might as well talk about football for all the good our stewing about the state of the union will do.


"

[jbear]

FACT- over 40% of people pay ZERO or NEGATIVE taxes.

FACT- Total Negative Tax Returns (returns where people not only paid ZERO in taxes but got a check for tax credits) is expected to be over $220 Billion!!!

In my mind this is the real meat of the issue.  Left leaners call it correcting "wealth disparity" but they overlook that paying taxes... or even not paying any should have nothing to do with with collecting social assistance.  EIC and really any refundable tax credits amount to turning the act of filing taxes into another form of welfare.  220 billion dollars saved by making people who need welfare go through the proper channels for help sounds like a bargain in terms of the  potential damage to society feared by many if we were to cut any social  programs.

[jbear]

Maybe eradicating refundable tax credits paired with raising taxes on the wealthy would be a compromise that could make a dent in the deficit.  Something like that will never get done in this political climate but at least the elimination of refundable tax credits I can agree with.  Its something that was probably put in place by a brilliantly forward thinking marxist. 

[dbucfan]

There are certain inequities that are ridiculous.  In my mind the tax code is a major stumbling block to equitable taxation - and to everyone feeling they are "contributing" to the well being of the country.  Remove the craziness from the tax code - remove the protections made for companies and powerful individuals, and remove the opportunity to not contribute.

Spending is out of control, the government is making an unholy mess of its' efforts to make thinks fair and good for all.  Issues with the poor/needy are better handled at the state level - but when the state has to wait to get money from the Federal Government that was taken from the State's citizenry - well get out of the way of the states.  And quit infringing on the States at the Federal level. 

It will be a combination of approaches that solves this mess - rightly or wrongly - I fear the current leadership is in over its' head.  More concerned with being elected than addressing the most dangerous problem in my lifetime.

[jbear]

The tax code is one of those issues that I don't think will ever get fixed without a major revolution like upheaval of government.  Too many special interests and no concensus on how to fix a complicated problem.  It's easy for us to say "Paying taxes should be more simple and straightforward" or "Nobody should pay negative taxes"  but give that to congress and you'll go round in circles and they'll end up with a simplification of the problem that somehow manages to complicate it further.  Our biggest problem is a human problem... its not about governing bodies but about human nature.  Give someone something for a while and it becomes something they're entitled to.  Take it away and you have outrage, rioting in the streets.  Think of all the poor single moms right at the sweetspot (3 kids) who are going to miss out on that $5,000.00 check every January.   

I'm not against helping people who need help but this is supposed to be our method of collecting taxes to fund the government.  How did we get here?  I really feel that this is the root of why our government is going broke.  This is the very first event at the very begining of the process of collecting the funds needed to have a govenment and we can't even do that right. 

[Biggs3535]

Well its pretty simple really. .. Either the people in this country gets off the government's tit or it will collapse into economic ruin.

Your choice. Florida needs to cut $5 billion out of it's budget just to get our head above water again. The Federal government needs to cut $1.5 TRILLION to get out of the red.

We can't continue with this welfare state. It's simple math. We don't have the money.

If conservatives were serious about cutting the deficit they would raise taxes. Cutting spending while simultaneously cutting revenue is a wash. It's simple math. This has nothing to do with deficits and everything to do with Republicanizing America and using deficit scare tactics as cover to do it.

So which taxes were raised for Florida's debt to decline by $2B?

http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2012/12/11/states-debt-declining-rapidly/

[spartan]

FACT-changing tax rates has often been followed by an opposite effect in Tax Revenues (i.e. Tax Revenues went UP after the Reagan and Bush Jr. Tax Cuts, Tax Increases have often been followed by REDUCED tax Revenues)

offset
Let's start with Reagan. Is that increase in tax revenue adjusted to offset the effects of inflation and population growth? Because both of those things will naturally cause an increase in revenue. When the rate is adjusted to these factors, real revenue growth under Reagan increased by 19% from 1980 to 1988. While that is certainly growth, one must also factor in that real tax revenue grew by 24% from 1972 to 1980, so essentially, the rate of growth actually decreased under Reagan.

So, if Reagans tax cuts did nothing, and the increase is down purely to natural growth, it doesn't say much for when revenue goes down when taxes go up does it? Not only do we take in less money, but it also wipes out all this natural growth you are talking about and is therefore, much, much worse than it first looks.

[Biggs3535]

Well its pretty simple really. .. Either the people in this country gets off the government's tit or it will collapse into economic ruin.

Your choice. Florida needs to cut $5 billion out of it's budget just to get our head above water again. The Federal government needs to cut $1.5 TRILLION to get out of the red.

We can't continue with this welfare state. It's simple math. We don't have the money.

If conservatives were serious about cutting the deficit they would raise taxes. Cutting spending while simultaneously cutting revenue is a wash. It's simple math. This has nothing to do with deficits and everything to do with Republicanizing America and using deficit scare tactics as cover to do it.

So which taxes were raised for Florida's debt to decline by $2B?

http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2012/12/11/states-debt-declining-rapidly/

I'm still waiting to have the "simple math" drawn out for me.

[CBWx2]

Well its pretty simple really. .. Either the people in this country gets off the government's tit or it will collapse into economic ruin.

Your choice. Florida needs to cut $5 billion out of it's budget just to get our head above water again. The Federal government needs to cut $1.5 TRILLION to get out of the red.

We can't continue with this welfare state. It's simple math. We don't have the money.

If conservatives were serious about cutting the deficit they would raise taxes. Cutting spending while simultaneously cutting revenue is a wash. It's simple math. This has nothing to do with deficits and everything to do with Republicanizing America and using deficit scare tactics as cover to do it.

So which taxes were raised for Florida's debt to decline by $2B?

http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2012/12/11/states-debt-declining-rapidly/

I'm still waiting to have the "simple math" drawn out for me.

For starters, my comment was about the federal government. State government operates differently. One example is in how Florida has decreased a bulk of that debt; by refinancing it at a lower interest rate.

Secondly, Rick Scott has accomplished this, in large part, by gutting infrastructure spending. The Florida state government is not providing basic government functions. This is extremely short sighted, and idiotic. It is also unsustainable. As one Democratic official correctly phrased it, it is a shell game. Eventually, Florida will have to increase spending again. By the time Scott is out of office, Florida will be in disrepair, and it will cost the next administration more to address the issues that this one ignored than it would if they had addressed them now.

[Biggs3535]

For starters, my comment was about the federal government. State government operates differently.

Of course it does.

The Florida state government is not providing basic government functions.

I knew the spin would be a laugh-riot.  Thanks.