President Obama today will propose a $3.8-trillion federal budget that includes a $100-billion jobs package, more education spending and higher taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year.
The budgetary blueprint for fiscal 2011, which starts Oct. 1, is 3% more than the government is spending this year, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The White House envisions a $1.267-trillion deficit in fiscal year 2011, smaller than this year’s projected $1.56 trillion. That would be 8.3% of the gross domestic product, down from 10.6% this year. The White House Budget Office forecasts that it could be trimmed to less than 4% of the GDP by 2015.
“It’s not a left-wing budget. It’s not a right-wing budget,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a briefing for reporters Sunday. “It’s a pragmatic budget. It’s a common-sense budget.
[...]
The budget includes a freeze on the overall level of discretionary spending apart from national security and mandatory entitlements — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
From the article:
“When [Obama] came to office we had a jobs crisis, a housing crisis, a fiscal crisis,” Pfeiffer said
Actually, no we did not. While we did have a housing and fiscal crisis, we did not yet have a job crisis. That happened later.
But getting another jobs bill through Congress has proved difficult.
Now how could that be given the “success” of the last jobs bill? I suspect that they meant to write: “But getting another worthless jobs bill through Congress has proved difficult.”
#2
Check. You’re in debt? Spend more! You do realize that many economists have made their stripes in showing how off the mark Keynes really was? Government spending to improve productivity can make a small difference. Spending to piss it away on pork projects will not help the economy.
#11
Every other civilized country in the world has higher tax rates than America.
Mmmm…the Hilarity Clinton logic. What? You aren’t paying 80% of your income to taxes?! How dare you. Everyone else is so we should too! Did you ever wonder why more people want to come to the US than anywhere else? It couldn’t “possibly” because they can keep more of what they earn?
#15
I’m not in favor of redistribution of wealth. I’m in favor of people paying a fair price for what they get.
By redistributing wealth. Do you really feel that much shame in describing yourself as a socialist?
We’ll see if raising taxes on the rich actually increases tax revenue. I suspect that the rich will simply move more of their money into non-taxable investments. Btw, when did 250K/year become “rich”? Anyone in NYC making 250K think they are rich? Frankly, if we’re going to redistribute the wealthy’s money, why not simply make it the top 1% earners? Anyway, we’ll know two years from now when the rich have had enough time to move their investments.
#41 #15
I’m not in favor of redistribution of wealth. I’m in favor of people paying a fair price for what they get.
By redistributing wealth. Do you really feel that much shame in describing yourself as a socialist?
LOL. What a wingnut you are. You don’t even understand the capitalist system you claim to support. If someone gets more, they should pay more. The guy buying the BMW has to pay more than the guy buying the Hyundai. Because he gets more. Rich people get more out of our system, so they should pay more. That’s not socialism, that’s capitalism. It’s market forces. Lordy, you wingnuts are wacked.
Look at it this way. Rich people have a choice where to live, where to pay their tax dollars. They can look all around the world and live wherever they want. They’re the shopper. Countries are the sellers. They say, “Come live in our country. You get X benefits for Y tax dollars.” (Companies are customers too by the way — haven’t you ever heard of companies and individuals moving their money to off-shore banks?)
My point is, the U.S. is a great deal for the rich, for reasons I’ve already explained. So if they want to live here, they need to STFU and pay their dues.
#42
I realize that you are mathematically challenged, but let’s see if we can explain this to you. If two people pay the same percentage of their income to taxes, the person that has the higher overall income DOES pay more even though they have the same tax rate. The person that buys a Aston Martin IS ALREADY paying more than a person that buys a Hyundai. Thus, arguing that rich need to pay their “fair” share is a steaming pile of bullshit. You have absolutely no interest in fair. What you want is for everyone to end with the same amount of disposable income after taxes.
#43 Aw, did a socialist scare you when you were a kid? Do you see one around every corner? Did one murder your dad?
Making a rich person pay 40% of their income in taxes while a poor person is paying 15% is not the same as equalizing disposable income after taxes. Work out the math, moron.
But what I don’t get is why you wingnuts suck up to the rich and powerful so much. Our current tax code is a mess. It’s riddled with loopholes and exceptions and sweetheart deals put in by rich people and corporations. They pay far less than their fair share. A flat tax would be an improvement over what we have now.
They’re spitting in our faces and kicking us in the teeth and all you want to do is bend over and hand them the lube. Heaven forbid some rich person might have to pay a little more in taxes, only have one vacation home instead of three! Meanwhile your taxes make up the difference and they’re laughing all the way to the bank.
I swear, wingnuts are like the abused wife who still defends her husband even when he beats her regularly.
#28, The underlying principle is that rich people benefit more from living in our society, so they should pay a higher percentage of their income to keep our society going. You may not agree with this principle, but many people do.
A principle is an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct. By your own admission, not everyone agrees with that so that reduces your statement to an opinion.
However, the definition of professed includes “alleged” and “pretended.” If you wish state your opinion in such a manner, I would accept that.
#44, Our current tax code is a mess. It’s riddled with loopholes and exceptions and sweetheart deals put in by rich people and corporations.
Which is why it needs to go away completely. It will never be fixed. You are living in Eutopialand if you think it will.
btw . . . who gets to determine fair?
Making a rich person pay 40% of their income in taxes while a poor person is paying 15% is not the same as equalizing disposable income after taxes. Work out the math, moron.
AHAHAHAHAH. I’m surprised you didn’t spell it “moran.” Making a rich person pay a higher percentage of their income is most definitely directed at having the rich person and the poor person end with the same amount of disposable income. Here’s a test for you. Try justifying a progressive tax without using the word “fair” or any synonym thereof (e.g. equitable).
Our current tax code is a mess. It’s riddled with loopholes and exceptions and sweetheart deals put in by rich people and corporations.
On this we agree, which is why people propose a flat tax but there are too many hands in the pot and too much cynicism and distrust towards the government for it to happen.
They pay far less than their fair share
There you go throwing out that term “fair” as if we all agree on your definition. “Fair” ought to imply “equitable” in this context but clearly it does not to you.
Btw, if it were only 40%, the rich might not complain as much. Take out those loopholes and include State taxes, local taxes and all other items that the government extracts from your income it is more like 60%+ right now.
Then Thomas you’ll agree with my math: $3,800,000,000,000 budget / 350,000,000 people = your share is $10,900.
If you have five people in your household, you owe about $55,000.
It is fee for service that you advocate, and a 2 year old enjoys the same services as a 55 year old.
Either taxes are a fee for service or they redistribute wealth (while paying for services). A regressive flat tax redistributes wealth. A progressive tax redistributes wealth.
When a rich person buys an expensive car, he pays a fee for service. If a poor person wants to buy that same expensive car, he pays the same fee for service. It goes without saying that the “fee for service” in this example is the cost to build and sell the car.
#46 AHAHAHAHAH. I’m surprised you didn’t spell it “moran.” Making a rich person pay a higher percentage of their income is most definitely directed at having the rich person and the poor person end with the same amount of disposable income. Here’s a test for you. Try justifying a progressive tax without using the word “fair” or any synonym thereof (e.g. equitable).
Sigh. OK, moron, I’ll spell it out for you.
Rich person: Income $1,000,000. 40% tax. Income after taxes: 1M * .60 = $600,000.
Poor person: Income $40,000. 15% tax. Income after taxes: 40K * .85 = $34,000.
Now here’s the tricky part for morons like you:
$34,000 < $600,000. (that's 34K "is less than" 600K)
If you think that's income equalization, I want some of the recreational drugs you're ingesting. Or maybe you slept thru math class. Or maybe listening to Rush'n'Beck too much has corroded your mind.
A moron's mind is a terrible thing to waste.
#49, Do does it make you mad that he still has $600,000 left over?
#50 Yep, there’s that good ol’ black and white wingnut thinking: Either you’re in favor of taking ALL of people’s money, or you’re in favor of not taking ANY of it. Nothing in between.
Y’all are like the Christian fundamentalists, only in an economic sense.
#51, Nice Dodge, there, hoss.
#52 #51, Nice Dodge, there, hoss.
You wish. You’re the one dodging reality with your ideas of banning all income taxes. Dream on. I’m living in the real world, with all those shades of gray you find so distressing. Taxation is necessary. Figuring out how to do it is difficult. So run away and hide in your fantasy solutions, little boy. Leave the real work to the adults.
#49
Folks, this stuff just writes itself. You have just proven my point:
A: A person with a higher income ALREADY pays more than the person with a lower income even if their tax rate were identical. One would think that the math would be easy to grasp, but if you had to write it out to understand, then fine.
B: It is all about how much money you have left over after taxes. You have no interest in “fair” meaning equitable. Your determination of “fair” is based on how much you have left after taxes. Hell, I’m surprised that you find 40% to be fair. Why not have a 96.6% tax rate for the rich? That way, both people end up with the same amount of money. Why stop at 40%? What makes 40% fairer than 30% and less fair than 50%, 70%, 90% or more?
#53, Well, you didn’t answer the question, what else are we to think?
#54, #55 Defining what is “fair” is indeed a very good question. But I won’t waste my time debating that question with people who think we should get rid of taxes completely.
And Thomas, it’s never been about making everyone have the same amount of disposable income. But no matter how many times I say that, you’re still picturing me as the big bad commie socialist taking everyone’s money. Whatever.
#56, My question wasn’t about fair.
My question was does it make you mad the guy still had $600,000 left?
It’s a simple Yes/No question.
But I won’t waste my time debating that question with people who think we should get rid of taxes completely.
And there he goes, confronted with logic, runs and hides. You’re nothing, if not consistent.
#56
But I won’t waste my time debating that question with people who think we should get rid of taxes completely.
That’s a strawman and a cop out. No one has made any such claim.
And Thomas, it’s never been about making everyone have the same amount of disposable income. But no matter how many times I say that, you’re still picturing me as the big bad commie socialist taking everyone’s money.
The problem is that your statement is not believable given other things you have said even in this thread. Statements such as: $34,000 < $600,000. (that's 34K "is less than" 600K) are in direct contradiction to the claim that you do not want everyone to end with the same amount of income after taxes.
As I asked before, why is 40% for a wealthy person considered fair and 50% not? Why not 90%? What makes 40% fair and 90% unfair? The very root of the problem is that “fairness” with respect to progressive taxes are arbitrary. Notions such as “well, they have the money, they can afford it” if taken to their logical conclusion mean “we’ll cap the tax rate when they can no longer afford it.” which translates to: “tax people until they have about the same amount left after taxes.”