Simply put, taxing the rich will pay off the debt; the commission proves itself to be a farce

[grahamhgreen]

By suggesting we lower taxes.

[stray cat]

1. If you tax everyone at 100% it would - but not the long term debt

[grahamhgreen]

5. If you tax only the super rich at the Greatest Generations tax levels, the DEBT is gone

In under 10 years...

Eliminating the Bush tax cut (4% increase) will raise 700 billion in revenues in 10 years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/polit ... ... )

Which means a 40% increase on the top tax rate to a rate similar to the pre-Reagan rate of 79.6% would yield 7 trillion in 10 years.

A 58% increase to 94% would yield over 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

So our deficit of 1.3 trillion would be gone in a little over a year and our DEBT would be gone in under 10 years (as we pay it down).

Simple! Done and done - and we haven't added the critical taxes to investment income yet!

2010 Y1: 14T - 3T (2T normal revenues plus additional 1T from tax on ultra-rich) = 11T debt
2011 Y2: 11T(debt) + 1T(deficit) - 3T = 9T debt
2012 Y3: 9T(debt) + 600B(deficit) - 3T = 6.6T debt
2013 Y4: 6.6T(debt) + 700T(deficit) - 3T = 4.3T debt
2014 Y4: 4.3T(debt) + 800T(deficit) - 3T = 2.1T debt
2015 Y5: 2.1T(debt) + 800T(deficit) - 3T = .1T debt
2016 Y6: .1T(debt) + 900T(deficit) - 3T = +2 Trillion SURPLUS!!!

[hfojvt]

12. the top rate was not 79% pre-Reagan

It was only 70%

[grahamhgreen]

15. Corrected - 70%, pre-Reagan

[Hannah Bell]

10. oh baloney

[dkf]

2. The rich dont make enough to tax us into a balanced budget much less pay down debt.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Whaaa?

20% of the people earn half of total income. Ten percent of americans have 74% of the wealth.

Tax them because that's where all the money is. The rich not only have enough money, they have all of it. Nearly half of americans have 0 net worth.

[Igel]

14. You really shouldn't confuse income with wealth.

I'm also not sure I like the idea of a wealth tax.

[grahamhgreen]

16. They can afford it, everone else is hurting.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. I'm not. But now that you brought it up, the purpose of the military is to protect wealth. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

6. Steep taxes on the rich are whythe greatest generation flourished!

Eliminating the Bush tax cut (4% increase) will raise 700 billion in revenues in 10 years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/polit ... ... )

Which means a 40% increase on the top tax rate to a rate similar to the pre-Reagan rate of 79.6% would yield 7 trillion in 10 years.

A 58% increase to 94% would yield over 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

So our deficit of 1.3 trillion would be gone in a little over a year and our DEBT would be gone in under 10 years (as we pay it down).

Simple! Done and done - and we haven't added the critical taxes to investment income yet!

2010 Y1: 14T - 3T (2T normal revenues plus additional 1T from tax on ultra-rich) = 11T debt
2011 Y2: 11T(debt) + 1T(deficit) - 3T = 9T debt
2012 Y3: 9T(debt) + 600B(deficit) - 3T = 6.6T debt
2013 Y4: 6.6T(debt) + 700T(deficit) - 3T = 4.3T debt
2014 Y4: 4.3T(debt) + 800T(deficit) - 3T = 2.1T debt
2015 Y5: 2.1T(debt) + 800T(deficit) - 3T = .1T debt
2016 Y6: .1T(debt) + 900T(deficit) - 3T = +2 Trillion SURPLUS!!!

[Greyhound]

8. Why, when the numbers show this to be a lie, do you guys keep repeating it? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

11. good question

[hfojvt]

13. depends on how you define 'rich'

Some people want to eliminate the adjective 'super'. If only the super-rich are rich, then some people must be super-poor.

[grahamhgreen]

17. Yes, in Haiti, they eat mud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wHiYkcm-Ro

[closeupready]

3. Agreed. As Krugman stated yesterday, what are tax cuts doing in a deficit reduction study?

n/t

[grahamhgreen]

7. The panel is biased to funnel more money to the top from the get go.

[Hannah Bell]

9. +100