Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Saturday, March 16, 2013 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
In her letter “Sequester solution is pretty simple,” Rosalyn Jimenez says that ending tax breaks for greedy corporations and the top 2 percent of Americans would be the “simple solution” to our budget problem. She says her proposal would raise $1 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years.
We now have a national debt of $16.4 trillion and are adding close to another $1.5 trillion to the deficit every year. Ten more years of this, and we would have a national debt of more than $30 trillion.
Her proposal would leave us with a very manageable $29 trillion national debt. Her “simple solution” would be better titled “simpleton solution.”
Jerry,
Obama got his $40-60$ billion in extra yearly tax revenue via higher taxes on the top 1% of wage earners. Two LVS articles this month eluded to this point:
Tax bills for rich families approach 30-year high
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar...
Who will pay what in 2013 taxes?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar...
How much households at different income levels will pay in federal income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes for 2013:
Bottom 20 percent
Average income: $10,552.
Average tax bill: -$284.
Average tax rate: -2.7 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: -0.4 percent.
___
Middle 20 percent
Average income: $46,562.
Average tax bill: $6,436.
Average tax rate: 13.8 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 8.6 percent.
___
Top 20 percent
Average income: $204,490.
Average tax bill: $55,533.
Average tax rate: 27.2 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 71.8 percent.
___
Top 1 percent
Average income: $1.4 million.
Average tax bill: $514,144.
Average tax rate: 35.5 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 30.2 percent.
Let's be patient and let that $40-$60 billion per year in extra tax revenue from top wage earners boost our economy and create jobs as promised by Obama.
The US has a spending problem. Unless and until President Obama and his advisors accept and understand this simple reality, there will be no progress on the US debt and deficit. Americans know this for a fact. Hence the reason that they now believe, according to all the polls on the matter, that the Republican representatives in Congress can and will do a better job in reforming out of control government spending. And 30 current sitting Governors in the US are republican.
Carmine D
If you look at the Patty Murray/Harry Reid Senate budget it increase taxes by $1.4 trillion over 10 years yet it never balances the budget - why? Because Obama, Reid and Murray keep increasing spending 5% every year.
The fundamental difference between the Democrat's Senate and the Republican House proposals is do we grow the federal government spending at 5% or 3.4% a year.
Democrats call the Republican budget increase of 3.4% per year unconscionable cruel austerity which would drive the economy into another recession and ruin.
- the Obama-Patty Murray Senate budget increases spending at more then 5.0% annually, Democrats want to spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Murray increases National Debt by $5 trillion.
The Murray Senate budget reverses $1.2 trillion in budget controls put in place by the Obama 2011 Budget Control Act, it make vague promises of savings due to price controls, increases Dependency benefits, eliminates $1.4 trillion in middle class tax deductions like charities and home interest, it does not reform taxes, it does not reform entitlements, it does not reform work-to-welfare, and never - ever balances the budget.
Patty Murray laughingly said "there are no sacred cows. We put everything we [Democrats] can put on the table." REALLY!
"Agree not to post the exact same (or very similar) comment on multiple stories"
from Reader Agreement - Las Vegas Sun Comment Policy.
This includes you Freeman.
Jim,
Those Las Vegas Sun articles are pertinent details to economic policy discussions. Jim, are you concerned that Obama's economic policy to tax the rich more will not create jobs and revitalize our economy?
Freeman
I'm not biting on your typical attempt to change the subject when challenged. Do you agree to follow the Reader Agreement or not? If so, do so! If not, state why you feel you're priveleged to continually repaste comment(s).
Comment removed by moderator. - -
Jim,
The subject of economic policy relative to tax & spend is the same. One letter author gave her view to tax the rich more even though "Tax bills for rich families approach 30-year high" according to a recent Las Vegas Sun article which I referenced. I gave supportive data of the tax burden at different income levels outlined in another Las Vegas Sun March 2013 article. Is the information not pertinent to the subject being debated in your estimation Jim?
We need to STOP SPENDING and eliminate numerous federal programs. Some programs can be handled at the local level where abuse can be contained. Eliminating handouts to foreign interests would open up world markets for RX drugs, consultants, food, technology..... In addition to balancing the federal budget we need to PAY DOWN THE DEBT.
Comment removed by moderator. - -
Comment removed by moderator. - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United...
The deficits not expected to go up anywhere near $1.5 trillion a year. Man what a bunch of baloney!
In terms of overall federal spending it's roughly 20% of GDP which is about what it's been for the last 70 years plus.
Keep in mind you've got 10,000 baby boomers retiring each day and this is expected to go on for at least the next 16 years.
That being said half the country doesn't pay any federal income tax. Most incorporated businesses pay no tax. High income earners gets stuck paying for nearly everything.
Eliminating for-profit medicine and a fairer system of taxation would eliminate nearly all of the fiscal issues going forward.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fede...
Fox news has been harping on this out of control federal spending issue for the better part of 10 years. The truth is it's no better and no worse than it's always been. It really hasn't changed a bit.
http://www.ifhp.com/documents/2011iFHPPr...
The $250 billion a month that this country spends on medical bills is causing severe financial dislocations for federal, state, local governments as well as being a component in 400,000 individual bankruptcies year.
When you look at the above comparative cost analysis for simple procedures and factor in cancer treatments and organ transplants can run well in excess of $1 million, it's no wonder the country's crying uncle. The above is as ridiculous as our tax code.
Because the military is facing an almost unbelievable rise in disability claims their medical spending is pegged at $700 billion over the next 10 years. They are having to cancel some of their most sophisticated weapon system development to pay medical bills. The military is becoming nothing more than a giant insurance company.
If you eliminated the entire military including off the book appropriations and veteran benefits you would save about $900 billion. You could then eliminate the entire 2,500,000 federal workforce and save another $250 billion. Eliminating the entire federal government the nation would still have problems paying the ridiculous medical bills that are coming due. The above would barely close to $60 trillion Medicare/Medicaid gap.
I almost spewed my drink last night when I heard Bill Maher say that taxes are too high and that rich people are paying the freight. He actually acknowledged that having seen the statistics he is now aware that the well-off are paying about 70% of taxes. He further stated that although he doesn't mind paying what's right, 50% or more in California is too much.
If even Bill Maher is questioning tax rates, then maybe the solution to our fiscal mess lies beyond just taxing the rich more.
The solution lies in paying the medical industry trillions less. If we brought our health care costs down to the next most expensive nation which is Norway, the unfunded liabilities would almost completely disappear in one fell swoop.
Bill Mahar talks about defense spending a lot. Read my above analysis. We spend over three times on medical what we spend on defense. Reducing defense spending just like taxing the rich more wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.
Although the episode isn't on the official site yet, here is a clip (for now anyway) of what he said: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55904-...
(Yes, I know the site that has the clip has an agenda, but the clip is unaltered and speaks for itself.)
Increasing spending by 5% a year puts the budget beyond the point where current tax policy can keep up even with the most recent tax increase.
Increasing spending by 3.4% a year puts the budget on a trajectory to close the deficit gap between spending and revenue
Why can't we all agree that controlling the increasing spending at 3.4% a year is enough.
--- CBO FORECASTS Federal Tax revenue increases from $2.3 trillion (2011) to $3.2 trillion (2014 est). So tax revenues are $900 billion higher year-over-year. when is it enough
The author of the letter is completely wrong about the size of the deficit:
"But after peaking in 2009 at $1.4 trillion, the deficit began coming down. The Congressional Budget Office expects the deficit for fiscal 2013 (which began in October and is almost half over) to be $845 billion. That may still sound like a big number, but given the state of the economy it really isn't.
Bear in mind that the budget doesn't have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path; all we need is a deficit small enough that debt grows more slowly than the economy. To take the classic example, America never did pay off the debt from World War II -- in fact, our debt doubled in the 30 years that followed the war. But debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell by three-quarters over the same period.
Right now, a sustainable deficit would be around $460 billion. The actual deficit is bigger than that. But according to new estimates by the budget office, half of our current deficit reflects the effects of a still-depressed economy. "
Mark: You are absolutely correct!!! But the simple fact that we ARE cutting spending is not enough to alter the posts of Roslenda that "...we need to PAY DOWN THE DEBT" or Future, who actually calls for MORE spending when he insists "controlling the increasing spending at 3.4% a year is enough" at a time when spending is actually DECLINING! Only an estimated 6% of the population believes that fact, so Roslenda, Future, et al., while mistaken, have much company. Apparently the Republican't "big lie" propaganda technique is working as intended. (See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22... for that 6% figure.)
There is a part of our current society more interested in maintaining the mantra that "If it happens on Obama's watch, by definition it MUST be BAD!" than in actually looking at the data. Trying to reason with closed minds is most frustrating...
boftx.....
Bill Maher also said that the C-PAC Convention is
a republican convention with the HOODS OFF!
Maher also said that Palin was getting ready for
the convention by writing notes on her hand.
He said the first note was, "Obama bad".
Jerry......
Rosalyn's idea is a good start.
But do you really think that the majority of
Americans forgot that the greedy, incompetent
republican party destroyed our entire economy and
middle class?
republicans are the last people on earth to listen
to about the economy, health care, guns, jobs,
climate change and science in general.
The Obama economy is doing great and is getting
better everyday.
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
Hello Robert,
I generally don't try to reason with such people. I just hope that readers will go and look for themselves and reject their nonsense.