Tax hike for wealthy won't kill growth: CBO

Nov 8, 2012 Full story: Reuters 665

A man with a local group of upper income professionals who call themselves ''Tax-Us'' holds a sign during a rally at City Hall in San Francisco, California April 17, 2012.

Full Story
spud

United States

#357 Nov 16, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you imagine anyone so naive as to believe that someone like Romney would pay the same "flat" tax as everyone else?
Take it easy dog, it's only a suggestion. Do you have a better one or are you just here to display your total devotion to a certain party? Both parties suck.
McGruff

Elizabethtown, KY

#359 Nov 16, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>We know what you are. Another teabaggin' Sunshine Patriot that waves the flag and is afraid to defend it.
what are these people?

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2012/11/08/boeing-an...

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#360 Nov 16, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Don't go there, Micro. You know nothing of what I've done. Get over yourself. You hired a guy, who would muck up fixing coffee in an automatic coffee maker. Has screwed up the war. Piled more debt on taxpayers, than all previous administrations. P.T. Barnum said it best. "There's a sucker born every minute, and two to take 'em. He plays Barnum to a tee...
I know what you've done. Supported a quiche eating draftdodging Chickenhawk that lost. Now what you can do is cry cry cry. Four more years of teabag tears.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#361 Nov 16, 2012
spud wrote:
<quoted text>Take it easy dog, it's only a suggestion. Do you have a better one or are you just here to display your total devotion to a certain party? Both parties suck.
But you voted for the candidate that sucked the most. You still haven't admitted you're a hypocrite. If you aren't, you would have voted for Gary Johnson.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#362 Nov 16, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>I know what you've done. Supported a quiche eating draftdodging Chickenhawk that lost. Now what you can do is cry cry cry. Four more years of teabag tears.
I'll send you my tax bill Micro, you can pay it with your welfare check?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#363 Nov 16, 2012
McGruff wrote:
what are these people?
Why are you still posting from the US, mooch?

You told us you were ashamed to be an American but you are still here.

Did Mexico close its gates?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#364 Nov 16, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
the cbo says over 700,000 jobs will be lost
You are a liar, Kneepads, but then we knew that already.

The figure being promoted by the tea bag loser is from Ernst & Young study - which they funded.

(quotye)
The Facts

According to an aide, Sessions obtained his figure from a study prepared last year by two economists at Ernst & Young for the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Federation of Independent Business, the S Corporation Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — all opponents of the president’s agenda.

That might be the first clue that this is potentially not a neutral document. One of the authors is also a former official in George W. Bush’s Treasury Department.

The study is titled “Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013.”

In other words, this is not an immediate impact, but the “long run.” You have to dig into the endnotes on page 22 to find a definition of long run:“For models of this type, roughly two-third to three-quarters of the long-run effect is reached within a decade.”

Oh. So, even if one accepts the assumptions in this model — a big “if”— it still means that the loss of 700,000 jobs would not come in the first year, or by the end of Obama’s second term, or even a decade from now. Yet Sessions says the jobs would be taken “from people who need those jobs,” suggesting it would have an immediate effect.(Note: 700,000 jobs is a one-year figure, applying the long-run effect to today’s economy.)

Moreover, while 700,000 jobs sounds like a lot, it actually translates into one-half of 1 percent of total employment. Given that this is a long-term prediction, there is certainly a lot of room for error. So much is dependent on the assumptions in the model.

There is also another revealing endnote:“Using the additional revenue to reduce the deficit is not modeled.”

That means the analysts did not even study the effect of Obama’s stated purpose for raising taxes; the 700,000 figure assumes that the revenue raised from the tax increase would be used for increased government spending. Yet presumably any deal on fixing the fiscal cliff would result in a lower federal deficit, since all sides agree they have that goal.

Indeed, there are also long-term effects from permanently extending the tax cuts without cutting the deficit. This is what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in 2010, after studying the impact of full, partial or temporary extensions of tax cuts:“The permanent extensions of the tax cuts would have much larger negative effects in the long term than the temporary extensions because the amount of additional government debt would be so much larger.”

In other words, focusing just one variable — an increase in taxes — is a bit simplistic. By itself, raising taxes likely leads to a reduction in employment. But the use of that additional revenue over the long term is also important — such as whether it is used to reduce budget deficits or boost government spending.

(PAY ATTENTION...)

The CBO this week released a report that examined the near-term effect of various provisions involved in the fiscal cliff. Extending all tax cuts would boost employment by 1.8 million jobs (with a range of 500,000 to 3.1 million) in the fourth quarter of 2013. But extending only the tax cuts for people making under $250,000 would boost employment by 1.6 million (with range of 500,000 to 2.8 million). So that translates into between zero and 300,000 fewer jobs, with a mid-range point of 200,000. In the near-term, however, increased government spending would also boost jobs, the CBO said.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#365 Nov 16, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>I'll send you my tax bill Micro, you can pay it with your welfare check?
No problem. I can pay for all the tax returns from your trailer trash park.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#366 Nov 16, 2012
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, people on medicare that carry insurance to cover those things NOT COVERED under medicare will find that insurance to be VERY EXPENSIVE.
You see those "Medicare Supplement" insurance commercials on TV all the time.
It ain't cheap!!
And without that supplemental insurance medicare recipients can and will experience very HIGH MEDICAL BILLS if/when they have a serious illness.(and old folks generally end up dying from a serious illness, leaving behind HUGE unpaid medical bills)
Okay but Medicare is socialism. It's government health care, and because it has been paying each person so much more than they paid into it, Medicare has about 80 TRILLION dollars in unfunded promises to the baby boomers. So if people want government health care when they are old, yes, they would have to pay $300 a month or more for it because on the open market without the government paying for most of it, it would cost people more like $2,000 a month. So if people want government health care and old aged care is so expensive, then the best thing to do would be to create a national sales tax that everyone pays to fund that $80 TRILLION of debt in Medicare. Otherwise you will see the costs for each person continue to go up until the government makes Medicare into vouchers, and at that point, it will be super expensive. You can't very well separate out Medicare from socialism and say "oh well, I get that so I want that, but I don't like socialism." It's nonsensical. Medicare and Social Security are our number one and number two spending items and they are socialism, so people need to admit they love their socialism and look at the debts in SS and Medicare and figure out a way of new taxation to come up with around $4 trillion per year in new taxes in order to pay the baby boomers SS and Medicare. Otherwise, those programs are going to go bankrupt in the next few years. The Tea Party is mainly older people on Medicare and on Social Security, party of that 47 percent who doesn't pay income taxes, so they tried to cut all other government spending in order for them to be the only ones receiving most of the government money, but the problem was the young people heard Paul Ryan say he would end SS and Medicare on them, so they all came out and voted against that, and the other problem is that SS and Medicare will soon be using up 97 percent of the federal budget, so this is where most of the tax money is going, so the Tea Party could not cut other spending in order to finance their socialism that they want. So people need to get honest and admit they love their socialism and they had better get busy and look for ways to fund the stuff, for a new tax, either a VAT or a national sales tax, or plan on being means tested and plan on Medicare going to vouchers.
spud

United States

#367 Nov 16, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>But you voted for the candidate that sucked the most. You still haven't admitted you're a hypocrite. If you aren't, you would have voted for Gary Johnson.
Anybody but Obama, dog. That's who I was for. I would have voted for Alfred E. Newman before I would have voted for your dummy. I hope you goofballs feel good about the debt you are sticking your children with. Democrats, the party of gimme.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#368 Nov 16, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>No problem. I can pay for all the tax returns from your trailer trash park.
You're dreaming again, Micro? You couldn't raise the money to pay for your tow-behind? Much less the condo, I paid for? Get a life, then get a job, if you are able? Oh that's right, Ain't nobody hiring?? No thanks, to you're Usurper raising taxes....

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#369 Nov 16, 2012
spud wrote:
<quoted text>Anybody but Obama, dog. That's who I was for. I would have voted for Alfred E. Newman before I would have voted for your dummy. I hope you goofballs feel good about the debt you are sticking your children with. Democrats, the party of gimme.
Repubs. The party of stupid. From one of your own...

Jindal had a terse warning for Republicans, saying in an interview with Politico that his party needed to "stop being the stupid party." He also warned about the future of a party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#370 Nov 16, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Repubs. The party of stupid. From one of your own...
Jindal had a terse warning for Republicans, saying in an interview with Politico that his party needed to "stop being the stupid party." He also warned about the future of a party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”
I've always liked Bobby Jindal. I like him second to Ron Paul as far as the Republicans go. If you notice, he is the kind of person who solves 5 problems all at the same time. He's an action, can do, type of person. When Katrina happened, he decided not to rebuild the public schools and he let charter schools pop up all over and it has worked out really well. He didn't rebuild the Section 8 housing that was near the ocean that was high crime ghettos. He moved the people out of the state and let the property to go private developers. So now tax payers live there and it's no longer a high crime area. He is super smart. He does things like took on Katrina, the oil spill, unemployment, starting charter schools all at the same time. He would be a good president, IMO. He should have run with Romney, or better yet, it should have been Ron Paul with Bobby Jindal as VP.
responder

Columbus, OH

#371 Nov 16, 2012
Of course it won't. It's only the rich, and their Party the reTHUGlicans, who pretend that returning to pre-Bush tax levels for the upper bracket would 'send us spiralling back into recession' or whatever nonsensical bit of fearmongering they're using THIS week.

We need more revenue, and less wasteful spending. This is part of the deal. If you're serious about reducing the deficit, agree to it. If you won't, you're not serious.

Simple as that.
spud

United States

#372 Nov 16, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Repubs. The party of stupid. From one of your own...
Jindal had a terse warning for Republicans, saying in an interview with Politico that his party needed to "stop being the stupid party." He also warned about the future of a party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”
How many times do I have to tell you Merko, both parties suck. The Republican party is stupid but not as stupid as Jindal. Jindal is trying to convince the party to support an amnesty. Can you imagine? We're about to go off a fiscal cliff and idiots like Boehner, Jindal, Graham and the whole Democratic party are chirping about passing an amnesty that the American people don't want. Are these idiots for real? They better get their heads out of their anuses and concentrate on our impending fiscal crisis.
responder

Columbus, OH

#373 Nov 16, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>You're dreaming again, Micro? You couldn't raise the money to pay for your tow-behind? Much less the condo, I paid for? Get a life, then get a job, if you are able? Oh that's right, Ain't nobody hiring?? No thanks, to you're Usurper raising taxes....
Another brilliant reTHUGlican rejoinder...as if you "paid for" anything but a few more fast food burgers to stuff in your gaping maw.

"Usurp" yourself a clue for a change...:)
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#374 Nov 16, 2012
spud wrote:
<quoted text>How many times do I have to tell you Merko, both parties suck. The Republican party is stupid but not as stupid as Jindal. Jindal is trying to convince the party to support an amnesty. Can you imagine? We're about to go off a fiscal cliff and idiots like Boehner, Jindal, Graham and the whole Democratic party are chirping about passing an amnesty that the American people don't want. Are these idiots for real? They better get their heads out of their anuses and concentrate on our impending fiscal crisis.
Sean Hannity was one of the first ones to come out after the election and say we should do an amnesty. What you do not understand is politicans are totally corrupt, in both parties, and they ONLY do whatever it takes to WIN. So now they found out it takes getting the Mexican vote to win, so now they want to do an amnesty, and so they will. See, all that crap Fox has been selling for years about them being patriots somehow and not being corrupt is all BS.

What they are worried about is see when LBJ did the Civil Rights Act and he created big welfare programs he nailed the black vote for the Dems FOREVER and LBJ said he was doing that. He knew that. So god forbid, Obama passes an amnesty and/or the Dream Act for the Hispanics and the Repubs go against it. That will seal the Hispanic vote forever for the Dems, same as LBJ did with the blacks. So then due to the Hispanics having ten kids on our welfare programs, soon enough they will be the majority vote, or even just putting the black vote together with the Hispanic vote it is now the majority vote by one point. So of course the Repubs HAVE to agree to an amnesty otherwise they are finished. Bobby Jindal is a super smart guy. Listen to what he is saying and look at his record of low unemployement WITH Katrina and of getting rid of the public schools in his state. He's a smart guy.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#375 Nov 16, 2012
spud wrote:
<quoted text>How many times do I have to tell you Merko, both parties suck. The Republican party is stupid but not as stupid as Jindal. Jindal is trying to convince the party to support an amnesty. Can you imagine? We're about to go off a fiscal cliff and idiots like Boehner, Jindal, Graham and the whole Democratic party are chirping about passing an amnesty that the American people don't want. Are these idiots for real? They better get their heads out of their anuses and concentrate on our impending fiscal crisis.
But see the legal Mexicans and the blacks are all Americans who DO want an amnesty and combined they outnumber the whites now. So we can all sit and pay and pay and pay for the majority of them to live on welfare and be totally racist while the liberal whites make us pay and pay and call us racists. On and on it goes. But see the young people, the legal Mexicans and the blacks want an amnesty so to say "The American people don't want an amnesty" isn't true. More than half of the American people do want an amnesty. That's the problem. Plus there is nothing else you can do with them. They have been here for decades, their kids were born here so are citizens, and once their kids turn 18, by our immigration laws they can bring their families here anyway. Might as well get them paying income taxes and paying into SS and Medicare and give the social security numbers so they can no longer work under the table AND apply for welfare. There's really nothing else you can do with them. No one will deport them, because all it takes is if they have one kid who is 18, they are entitled to be here anyway.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#376 Nov 16, 2012
spud wrote:
<quoted text>How many times do I have to tell you Merko, both parties suck. The Republican party is stupid but not as stupid as Jindal. Jindal is trying to convince the party to support an amnesty. Can you imagine? We're about to go off a fiscal cliff and idiots like Boehner, Jindal, Graham and the whole Democratic party are chirping about passing an amnesty that the American people don't want. Are these idiots for real? They better get their heads out of their anuses and concentrate on our impending fiscal crisis.
And how many times do I have to remind you that you voted for the party that sucked worse. You're a hypocritcal loser that didn't put his vote where his mouth was. If you did, you would have voted for Johnson.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#377 Nov 16, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>And how many times do I have to remind you that you voted for the party that sucked worse. You're a hypocritcal loser that didn't put his vote where his mouth was. If you did, you would have voted for Johnson.
They should have had Ron Paul as the Repub nominee. Gary Johnson learned everything he knows from Ron Paul, and he said so in one of the first Repub debates. By the time they didn't put a Libertarian on the ticket, it was too late to try and vote for Johnson against Romney and Obama. That is throwing a vote away. I voted for RP in the primary, four years ago too. We needed a strong Libertarian running in one of the two major parties, not an after thought of a third party candidate. RP ran Libertarian a long time ago and lost and he said the ONLY way a Libertarian can win is by running in one of the two major parties.

I tried for 3 years in here to get people to support Ron Paul. The problem was Fox Noise telling the loons to dislike RP and to vote for their guy so they could have another war they could profit off of.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Small Business Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Start your own business selling Kurtos kalacs (... (Feb '11) Feb 27 Rita 64
Best Way To Make Money Online Feb 16 Kim 2
a1 best ways to make money online | make money ... Feb 16 Alicia 6
Bill would allow Hoosiers to refuse gay weddings Feb 9 NorCal Native 29
for sale atm skimmer (wincor,diebold,ncr) (Sep '10) Feb 4 senegal 10
Alibaba to U.S. firms: Secure a loan through us Feb 4 notsoaveragejoe 1
Minister touts value of small business in Chema... Feb 3 Valley 1
More from around the web