My Prediction if Romney Loses

[GenSeneca]

increasing taxes for the wealthy

So what happens when raising taxes actually causes revenues from that tax to drop? What then?

Excerpt from 2008 debate:​

​

Charlie Rose: "Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation dropping the Capital Gains rate from 28 to 20%, and George W. Bush further lowered it to 15%. In each case, lowering the rate actually increased revenues from the tax. In the 1980's, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues actually went down. So why raise it at all?"​

​

Obama: "Charlie, what I've said is that I'd look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."​

​

The empirical data shows that raising CG rates will cause a reduction in revenue from the tax, so I ask again... What comes of your "balanced" approach when hiking taxes actually causes us to run higher deficits due to reduced revenue? Will you reconsider your position on taxing the wealthy?

Also, the CBO scored Obama's proposed tax increases and, assuming he actually gets the additional revenue from the tax hikes he's proposing (despite the historical empirical data that shows revenues will actually drop), it would presumably generate an additional $800 billion over 10 years, that's $80 billion a year - Current Deficit is $1.2 Trillion minus $80 billion = $1.12 Trillion deficit.

How much is he proposing to cut from spending? I've yet to see him put forward a single quantifiable example of where he would cut spending. As for corporate welfare, he's going to expand that, he promised to do so... He didn't call it corporate welfare though, he called it, "investments in renewable energy". Make no mistake, he will shower "green" companies with billions of taxpayer dollars and continue to bailout any company deemed "too big to fail".

His "balanced" approach doesn't even qualify as smoke and mirrors, it's shear lunacy that anyone could buy into it. If Obama really wanted to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse from the budget, he'd resign.

 

[dogtowner]

Morally, I see no difference between the R's and D's, they both ascribe to the immoral worldview of Collectivism. Now where style and degree are concerned, I do give Republicans credit for being the lesser of two evils and prefer them to the Dems. If we're going to be forced to go the wrong direction, I want to be dragged in that direction as slowly as possible.

Collectivism is not being opposed on the national stage, that's why it's so prevalent. I think many Christians are suckered into Collectivism too, "helping the poor" is something they believe in doing but nobody bothers to point out that Christ was calling on Christians to personally render assistance as individuals. Christ was not calling on Christians to demand that Caesar institute programs that forcibly redistributed the wealth of everybody, whether they were Christians or not, in order to "help the poor"... Yet that is what the scripture has been twisted into meaning for many people.

well to be fair its mainly non Christians totally failing to understand more than the odd sound bite outa the Good Book. but all too many are too ignorant to know this.

 

[GenSeneca]

well to be fair its mainly non Christians totally failing to understand more than the odd sound bite outa the Good Book. but all too many are too ignorant to know this.

I disagree... Social Justice has become very prevalent among Christians, especially Catholics. The Left has been pushing Social Justice in the churches for decades as a means of garnering religious support for the policies of the Collectivist Left. Additionally there is Black Liberation Theology, whose most famous preacher is Reverend Wright and his most famous disciple is Obama.

There are others as well but the cancer of Leftism has been steadily eating away at our churches for decades. The least receptive churches are those of the Evangelical Christians... Which is why they are the biggest religious target of the Left.

 

[dogtowner]

I disagree... Social Justice has become very prevalent among Christians, especially Catholics. The Left has been pushing Social Justice in the churches for decades as a means of garnering religious support for the policies of the Collectivist Left. Additionally there is Black Liberation Theology, whose most famous preacher is Reverend Wright and his most famous disciple is Obama.

There are others as well but the cancer of Leftism has been steadily eating away at our churches for decades. The least receptive churches are those of the Evangelical Christians... Which is why they are the biggest religious target of the Left.

OH churches as opposed to Christians, now I have it. Maybe its me but I do not know a Catholic that thinks its government's job. They all know it's theirs.

 

[Openmind]

So what happens when raising taxes actually causes revenues from that tax to drop? What then?

Excerpt from 2008 debate:​

​

Charlie Rose: "Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation dropping the Capital Gains rate from 28 to 20%, and George W. Bush further lowered it to 15%. In each case, lowering the rate actually increased revenues from the tax. In the 1980's, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues actually went down. So why raise it at all?"​

​

Obama: "Charlie, what I've said is that I'd look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."​

​

The empirical data shows that raising CG rates will cause a reduction in revenue from the tax, so I ask again... What comes of your "balanced" approach when hiking taxes actually causes us to run higher deficits due to reduced revenue? Will you reconsider your position on taxing the wealthy?

Also, the CBO scored Obama's proposed tax increases and, assuming he actually gets the additional revenue from the tax hikes he's proposing (despite the historical empirical data that shows revenues will actually drop), it would presumably generate an additional $800 billion over 10 years, that's $80 billion a year - Current Deficit is $1.2 Trillion minus $80 billion = $1.12 Trillion deficit.

How much is he proposing to cut from spending? I've yet to see him put forward a single quantifiable example of where he would cut spending. As for corporate welfare, he's going to expand that, he promised to do so... He didn't call it corporate welfare though, he called it, "investments in renewable energy". Make no mistake, he will shower "green" companies with billions of taxpayer dollars and continue to bailout any company deemed "too big to fail".

His "balanced" approach doesn't even qualify as smoke and mirrors, it's shear lunacy that anyone could buy into it. If Obama really wanted to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse from the budget, he'd resign.

80 billions reduction in the deficit EVERY YEAR for 10 years (including not having to pay the servicing on those 80 millions every year) is a lot more than NOTHING.

By the way, when you say: "that raising CG rates will cause a reduction in revenue from the tax," you are talking about the fact that there is an "optimal" tax point up to which the revenues increase, and after that, if the tax is raise any further, it will THEN being to reduce revenues. That is NOT what Obama wants to do.
And the "balanced approach must include SEVERAL instruments to raise revenues, including an "super tax" on the largest income (maybe the top 1/2 of 1%).

There is a very interesting article that you may enjoy reading:

MONDAY, NOV 12, 2012 07:04 PM EST
Obama’s “grand bargain”-ing leverage

If the president wants to achieve a $4 trillion deficit reduction, he needs to aim high with the GOP

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/obamas_grand_bargain_ing_leverage/

 

[GenSeneca]

you are talking about the fact that there is an "optimal" tax point

No, I'm simply pointing out that we have historical-empirical data that shows raising CG rates will cause a reduction in revenue from the tax. I'm willing to go on record right now and say that IF the CG rates get raised, revenue from the tax will fall. That's not an opinion, it's historical fact.

That is NOT what Obama wants to do.

Raising the CG rates is exactly what Obama wants to do. It WILL result in the reduction of revenue from the CG tax.

And the "balanced approach must include SEVERAL instruments to raise revenues, including an "super tax" on the largest income (maybe the top 1/2 of 1%).

Good plan... Let's start with everyone in Hollywood, Congress, and the MSM.

There is a very interesting article that you may enjoy reading:

Ok, read it... Let's look at some math.

$4 trillion over 10 years and he's including his tax hikes and budget cuts with that number. That's $400 billion a year in a perfect world.

Current deficits = $1.2 Trillion/yr
Proposed "savings" = $400 billion/yr
Remaining deficit = $800 billion/yr

Here's something for you to consider:

Among the 21 new spending proposals included in the Democratic Party platform are:​

• $453 billion over ten years to fund an expansive stimulus-like job creation scheme;​

• $18.4 billion over ten years to get the transportation sector to buy into alternative fuels:​

• $6.5 billion over five years for global food security and agriculture research;​

• $5 billion in one-time funding for clean energy handouts;​

• $5 billion in one-time funding to force the government into the broadband Internet business;​

• $980 million over ten years for government-funded abortions (if taxpayers' pay for 10 percent of abortions); and​

• $45 million over five years to support American Indian and Alaska Native languages.​

In total, the Democratic Party platform recommends $674.8 billion in additional federal spending over the next decade.​

​

I highlighted the word "additional" because they're proposing to spend that on top of our current spending. Let's go back to the math...

Remaining deficit PLUS new spending = $867.48 billion/yr

And that number is entirely predicated on the spending cuts and additional revenue from tax hikes actually materializing. It's much more likely, statistically (based on historical evidence), that we'll see the already insane annual deficits dramatically grow during Obama's second term.

 

[dogtowner]

No, I'm simply pointing out that we have historical-empirical data that shows raising CG rates will cause a reduction in revenue from the tax. I'm willing to go on record right now and say that IF the CG rates get raised, revenue from the tax will fall. That's not an opinion, it's historical fact.

Raising the CG rates is exactly what Obama wants to do. It WILL result in the reduction of revenue from the CG tax.


Good plan... Let's start with everyone in Hollywood, Congress, and the MSM.

Ok, read it... Let's look at some math.

$4 trillion over 10 years and he's including his tax hikes and budget cuts with that number. That's $400 billion a year in a perfect world.

Current deficits = $1.2 Trillion/yr
Proposed "savings" = $400 billion/yr
Remaining deficit = $800 billion/yr

Here's something for you to consider:

Among the 21 new spending proposals included in the Democratic Party platform are:​

• $453 billion over ten years to fund an expansive stimulus-like job creation scheme;​

• $18.4 billion over ten years to get the transportation sector to buy into alternative fuels:​

• $6.5 billion over five years for global food security and agriculture research;​

• $5 billion in one-time funding for clean energy handouts;​

• $5 billion in one-time funding to force the government into the broadband Internet business;​

• $980 million over ten years for government-funded abortions (if taxpayers' pay for 10 percent of abortions); and​

• $45 million over five years to support American Indian and Alaska Native languages.​

In total, the Democratic Party platform recommends $674.8 billion in additional federal spending over the next decade.​

​

I highlighted the word "additional" because they're proposing to spend that on top of our current spending. Let's go back to the math...

Remaining deficit PLUS new spending = $867.48 billion/yr

And that number is entirely predicated on the spending cuts and additional revenue from tax hikes actually materializing. It's much more likely, statistically (based on historical evidence), that we'll see the already insane annual deficits dramatically grow during Obama's second term.

the superrich do not have enough money to save BO's fiscal arse. but we have to remember that America has been lagging in math, perhaps the teacher unions have done this for a reason ?!?!?!

 

[Gipper]

I guess you haven't been listening to Obama's speeches, or you would KNOW that it includes spending cuts, but first of all, I hope it includes CORPORATE WELFARE cuts. . .and then reduction of wastes from entitlements. And, OBVIOUSLY, Obama (nor anyone else) could not erase the deficit in the next 4 years. . .I guess maybe you're the one believing in Santa Claus.

But at least Obama's plan includes a balance approach (cuts in spending AND increase in revenues through either . ..or both. . .increasing taxes for the wealthy and eliminating loopholes that allow people like Romney to pay a smaller percentage of taxes on $12.7 million annual income than the percentage most middle and upper middle class people pay!

I am very glad to see that, now that the elections are over, even some conservative Republicans are revising their views on this, and are actually recommending that the GOP adopt the "balanced" approach.

It continually amazes me how people can believe raising tax rates will help anyone other than the government. It is well known by those in the know, that doing so rarely increases revenue to the treasury and almost always reduces revenue. We need to promote economic growth not limit it as BO is doing. BO if following FDR's failed economic plans and admits it. CRAZY!

However I can agree that we need to end corporate welfare, but the chances of this coming to pass are about nil. The big corps own the lobbyists who own the politicians. Our corrupt government will never end corporate welfare.

This little article spells it out nicely.....how is it millions of Americans fail to see the truth? It looks like we are destined for trillion dollar plus deficits for a long time....or until it all comes crashing down.

The Hard Fiscal Facts


The nearby table lays out the ugly details. The feds rolled up another $1.1 trillion deficit for the year that ended September 30, which was the biggest deficit since World War II, except for each of the previous three years. President Obama can now proudly claim the four largest deficits in modern history. As a share of GDP, the deficit fell to 7% last year, which was still above any single year of the Reagan Presidency, or any other year since Truman worked in the Oval Office.

​

​

​

​

Tax revenue kept climbing, up 6.4% for the year overall, and at $2.45 trillion it is now close to the historic high it reached in fiscal 2007 before the recession hit. Mr. Obama won't want you to know this, but this revenue increase is occurring under the Bush tax rates that he so desperately wants to raise in the name of getting what he says is merely "a little more in taxes." Individual income tax payments are now up $233 billion over the last two years, or 26%.
This healthy revenue increase comes despite measly economic growth of between 1% and 2%. Imagine the gusher of revenue the feds could get if government got out of the way and let the economy grow faster.
Now let's look at outlays, which declined a bit in 2012. That small miracle was achieved thanks to a 4% fall in defense spending, a 24% fall in jobless benefits, and an 8.9% decline in Medicaid spending.
Note, however, that federal spending remains at a new plateau of about $3.54 trillion, or some $800 billion more than the last pre-recession year of 2007. One way to think about this is that most of the $830 billion stimulus of 2009 has now become part of the federal budget baseline. The "emergency" spending of the stimulus has now become permanent, as we predicted it would.


When Beltway politicians claim they want a "balanced" approach to reducing the deficit, what they really mean is raising taxes to finance this new higher spending level. And the still-higher level that is coming with ObamaCare.
The reality is that the fastest way to raise revenue is with faster economic growth. To the extent that raising tax rates will reduce the rate of growth, it will slow the flow of tax revenue and increase the deficit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8113033115035920.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

 

[Openmind]

It continually amazes me how people can believe raising tax rates will help anyone other than the government. It is well known by those in the know, that doing so rarely increases revenue to the treasury and almost always reduces revenue. We need to promote economic growth not limit it as BO is doing. BO if following FDR's failed economic plans and admits it. CRAZY!

However I can agree that we need to end corporate welfare, but the chances of this coming to pass are about nil. The big corps own the lobbyists who own the politicians. Our corrupt government will never end corporate welfare.

This little article spells it out nicely.....how is it millions of Americans fail to see the truth? It looks like we are destined for trillion dollar plus deficits for a long time....or until it all comes crashing down.

Do you realize where the greatest portion of the deficit comes from?
I give you a free clue: Obama is only responsible for 16% of the current deficit.

As for the deficit's cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush's legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.

Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent--despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies--fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping--contributed mightily to the nation's current economic situation. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). All told, the weak economy is responsible for 20 percent of the fiscal problems we face in 2009 and 2010.

President Obama's policies have also contributed to the federal deficit--but only 16 percent of the projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 are attributable to those policies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, designed to help bring the economy out of the recession is, by far, the largest single additional public spending under this administration. [CAP, 8/25/09]
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...tely-bl/178682

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't think BO has any intention of changing anything. I was merely strategizing.

Remember this from his convention speech when he addressed how he would handle the economy? We need...."the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one." This absurd ignorance would be roundly condemned in a sane nation. For one to think the economic interventions by FDR did anything beneficial, one has to be a complete fool or a traitor. FDR failed on all counts just as BO will.

The consequences of BO's actions could very well result in terrible suffering for the American people. It is ironic that young people voted overwhelmingly for him when you consider that roughly 50% of young people in Spain and Greece are unemployed. American youth will experience the same thing thanks to BO's policies.

The consequences of BO's actions have ALREADY resulted in terrible suffering (mostly poor folks). He inherited an unremarkable recession that was due to fade as all recessions do on average after two years and he prolonged it and made it worse with collectivist and cronyist policies. His admin is printing (and devaluing) money at an alarming rate which of course causes the price of every single item bought with dollars to increase dramatically - again hurting the poor the most. And yes, as you say, young people are hit with unemployment more than others on this.

 

[Dr.Who]

Morally, I see no difference between the R's and D's, they both ascribe to the immoral worldview of Collectivism. Now where style and degree are concerned, I do give Republicans credit for being the lesser of two evils and prefer them to the Dems. If we're going to be forced to go the wrong direction, I want to be dragged in that direction as slowly as possible.

Collectivism is not being opposed on the national stage, that's why it's so prevalent. I think many Christians are suckered into Collectivism too, "helping the poor" is something they believe in doing but nobody bothers to point out that Christ was calling on Christians to personally render assistance as individuals. Christ was not calling on Christians to demand that Caesar institute programs that forcibly redistributed the wealth of everybody, whether they were Christians or not, in order to "help the poor"... Yet that is what the scripture has been twisted into meaning for many people.

yes, that deserves a bump!

 

[Dr.Who]

It continually amazes me how people can believe raising tax rates will help anyone other than the government.

Just how does raising taxes that will then not result in increased revenue help government?

Remember the famous Obama quote where he stated that he was not so much concerned about taxing the wealthy to increase revenue but instead as a matter of (twisted) fairness. I am not rich and would love it if I got some of their money but I am a citizen first and know that what is best for america is that everyone be treated equally under the law - and that means that we all live under the same tax laws and that we all go to jail if we defraud each other. What I see happening is that the rich pay a higher rate in taxes than other people and also get a free pass from gov when they defraud people. Odd since it is the job of gov to stop the fraud and it is not the job of gov to redistribute wealth.

The Bush admin prosecuted hundreds of Wall Street players and the Obama admin has prosecuted none. Bush is credited* with making the tax rates more even and Obama wants to make them more uneven. What kind of admin does not prosecute those who commit fraud but claims to want to redistribute wealth for the sake of fairness? In the USSR was the weatlh of the favored rich ever redistributed or was that all lip service? If you all are a persons who really and truly wants to help poor people then you need to oppose schemes to redistribute wealth that will never materialize and stand up for the traditional concepts of fairness and justice.

*He is credited with making tax rates more even (which is what people are referring to when they say that he cut taxes for the rich) but under his tax plan the rich paid more total dollars than they did before and more as a percent of the total.

 

[GenSeneca]

Do you realize where the greatest portion of the deficit comes from?

Let's look at the numbers...

[T]he $830 billion stimulus of 2009 has now become part of the federal budget baseline. The "emergency" spending of the stimulus has now become permanent...​

Now let's look at the math...

Avg. Obama Deficit = $1.2 Trillion
The "one time" emergency spending that's become permanent = $830 Billion

Basic Math: $1.2t - $830b = $190 billion

If we just STOPPED spending the "one time" stimulus money EVERY YEAR, we'd only have a deficit of $190 billion. Claiming that Obama is only responsible for 16% of his massive deficits is a lie, one that has now been easily demonstrated as having no basis in fact.

 

[Gipper]

Just how does raising taxes that will then not result in increased revenue help government?

Remember the famous Obama quote where he stated that he was not so much concerned about taxing the wealthy to increase revenue but instead as a matter of (twisted) fairness. I am not rich and would love it if I got some of their money but I am a citizen first and know that what is best for america is that everyone be treated equally under the law - and that means that we all live under the same tax laws and that we all go to jail if we defraud each other. What I see happening is that the rich pay a higher rate in taxes than other people and also get a free pass from gov when they defraud people. Odd since it is the job of gov to stop the fraud and it is not the job of gov to redistribute wealth.

The Bush admin prosecuted hundreds of Wall Street players and the Obama admin has prosecuted none. Bush is credited* with making the tax rates more even and Obama wants to make them more uneven. What kind of admin does not prosecute those who commit fraud but claims to want to redistribute wealth for the sake of fairness? In the USSR was the weatlh of the favored rich ever redistributed or was that all lip service? If you all are a persons who really and truly wants to help poor people then you need to oppose schemes to redistribute wealth that will never materialize and stand up for the traditional concepts of fairness and justice.

*He is credited with making tax rates more even (which is what people are referring to when they say that he cut taxes for the rich) but under his tax plan the rich paid more total dollars than they did before and more as a percent of the total.

Good point....raising tax rates generally does not benefit anyone including government. Of course, BO is a president with tyrannical tendencies and he wants to punish success, because he thinks that will be helpful in some deluded sense of fairness and consequences be damned.

The rest of your post is well said. Particularly the point on being a citizen knowing what is best for America. I think you have hit on something there. I too know what is best and am not looking for government to support me and my family. You and I know that the welfare state is not only unsustainable, it is also immoral and damaging.

Why is it that we can see the heinous nature of the welfare state and abhor it, yet others do not?

 

[Gipper]

Obama is only responsible for 16% of the current deficit.

That has to be one of the most foolish statements I have ever read. How in the world can you believe such a thing?