CBO Ending HighIncome Tax Cuts Would Save Almost 1 Trillion Dollars: Swingers Discussion 212033

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

TOPIC: CBO: Ending High-Income Tax Cuts Would Save Almost 1 Trillion Dollars

Created by: TheGhost_and_MrsMuir Original Starting post for this thread:
"The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) new report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts. Overall, this would mean $950 billion in ten-year deficit reduction, a significant step in the direction of fiscal stability." So much for the idiotic claim by neoclowns that 'if everyone in the top 1% was taxed 100% it would not pay down our debt or clear the deficit'. New taxes for the 1%. It's what's for dinner... Chew well neoclowns, chew well.

Created by: TheGhost_and_MrsMuir
Original Starting post for this thread:

"The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) new report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts.  Overall, this would mean $950 billion in ten-year deficit reduction, a significant step in the direction of fiscal stability."

So much for the idiotic claim by neoclowns that 'if everyone in the top 1% was taxed 100% it would not pay down our debt or clear the deficit'. 

New taxes for the 1%.  It's what's for dinner...

Chew well neoclowns, chew well.

GoTo Page: 1 2

1 to 10 of 13

End

User Details are only visible to members.	raising import taxes would actually in the long run bring production back to the US. I agree, and it is simple, too simple. But we both know the agreeing with the other side in order to get things done,even if the agree with eachothe on an issue,does not get them votes, only generating hate for the other side gets votes. How many times over the years have we seen both sides flip floop on on issue because all of a sudden the other side thinks it's right thing to do. I swear i believe that if the right started supporting gay marrage and abortion, the left would oppose it. and if the left starting supporting tax cuts for the wealthly the right would oppose it.
New Orleans LA			Username hidden (2197 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Sweet that makes no sense, raising import taxes would actually in the long run bring production back to the US. It is so simple it is amazing that the politicians avoid the very tax system that was originally in the constitution.
Sanford NC			Username hidden (18796 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"Because that doesn't translate into votes." Yeah, but we just had an election and won't have another one for two more years. Can't people get out of campaign mode for long enough to make a few rational policy decisions?
San Quentin CA			Username hidden (8604 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Why can't people discuss tax policy in terms of raising the revenue we need by having a tax code that does the least damage to economic growth? Because that doesn't translate into votes. The same can be said when discussing spending cuts.
New Orleans LA			Username hidden (2197 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Two things about this tax debate are really bugging me. The first is that some liberals talk as if raising taxes on high earners is an end unto itself, or that it will by itself suddenly make everything fine and dandy. The second is this constant reference by both sides, but more often by liberals, about what is "fair." Even if we could agree on basic facts, "fairness" is too subjective a thing to be agreed upon as a matter of policy. Why can't people discuss tax policy in terms of raising the revenue we need by having a tax code that does the least damage to economic growth?
San Quentin CA			Username hidden (8604 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	saving billons of dollars over ten years,great.spening ten trillon more each year dosen't add up to any saving.how smart are you.....BS
Kingston TN			Username hidden (1928 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Here is what you do. 1) any company paying Their employees a wage/benefits that allow them to be poor enough to qualify for government help... Receives no help from the government. (your business isn't important enough to be helped by the people.) 2) tax said employers (low wage payers) for the welfare their employees must be paid by the government. This will encurrage the employer to pay better wages. War: When there is neither a draft and war tax, reduced the military to a size able to train a military within six months. Keep just enough of the air force to launch a nuclear bombing campaign and our nuclear subs to nuke a hostile attacking our country. Take those who are 50% disabled and not working as well as the unemployed and draft them into a service pool. This pool does the cooking, cleaning and other service jobs that private contractors are doing now... Civilians have no place in war, only the military and draftees. Reorganize how military contracts are done for R&D. Make the companies come to us with completed weapons and then we pay them to produce the weapons rather than we simply forking over endless amounts if cash for R&D into fighter jets that become twenty years old by the time they are made to work right. I am sure that there are other examples of waste, but I won't waste our time labeling them all.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4842 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Va and Ghost effectively identify the issues. It's not rocket science. On the question of raising taxes on the top earners, the key is establishing a rate that is high enough to increase revenues but low enough to avoid disincentivizing hard work and risk. Any lefty that thinks government can increase taxes continuously without stifling economic growth is naive. Any righty who thinks that any tax increase will act as a disincentive to hard work is equally clueless. I am firmly conviced that we can not solve our deficit solely by taxing the wealthy. On the other hand, if we can close even a small part of the gap with revenue enhancements, we owe it to ourselves to add this to the mix of solutions.
Amherst Canada			Username hidden (1700 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Posts deleted due to my inability to stay engaged with the fora for a while. Never mind.
Chesapeake VA			Username hidden (11827 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Lucky: You see unlike the right, the left try new ideas when older ones fail. If Obama and the dems fail, they will adapt rather than lock the government up in a stale mate. Now the biggest question is not rather of not they fail, rather it ought to be what is success? Without knowing what it is that you seek, you will never know success from failure.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4842 post)

GoTo Page: 1 2

1 to 10 of 13

End

TOPIC: CBO: Ending High-Income Tax Cuts Would Save Almost 1 Trillion Dollars

		HELP
FORUMS: General Discussions: Politics: CBO: Ending High-Income Tax Cuts Would Save Almost 1 Trillion Dollars