[adamwagg]

Deep breaths people. I'm enjoying the robust discussion so far but let's keep on the right side of line.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Your right. A 3% rise in the marginal tax probably will not destroy the economy. A raise that small probably won't raise very much money either.

I think the CBO number is something like $200billion per year... or >15% of the national deficit.

My compromise on taxes is that the spending has to be cut first, THEN they can raise taxes to make up the difference. Whats wrong with that?

Numerous things.

For one: you have a real problem (revenue) just completely ignored on the grounds "we haven't cut spending yet".

For another: your demand for a balanced budget is something that's happened once in the last century; and you want to do it with less revenue than then.

For yet another: it's arbitrary,

Also its a little ridiculous that everyone's "plans" include 10 years of deficits...

The only way to avoid that would be to raise taxes considerably.

Let's look at the two wars (CBO estimates the total cost there to be something like $2.4 trillion)

I think spending is around $200billion per year. How do you stop it overnight?
I suppose we could just fire everyone immediately and then leave them wherever they are and to their own devices.

If, on the other hand, you would like to fly them back to the states. If you would like to actually process discharges for the soldiers. If you would like to continue to provide the wounded with medical aid. If you'd like to actually bring back some of our expensive equipment... not to mention offering a transition rather than sudden withdrawal: you are going to have to keep spending money for some time in the future. In short: you can cut the wars from spending, but not by the 2012 budget.

The wars are an easy example: but not the only real example. Actual budget cuts take time to implement in some reasonable fashion.... well, except increases on rates of existing taxes. Those are per-quarter.

So on the one hand I don't think congress is serious about fixing the deficit (why? They can just pass the problem on to the next people instead); but it's also true that change won't happen overnight even if they were.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think the CBO number is something like $200billion per year... or >15% of the national deficit.

Is the CBO terribly bad at math? If they think that a 3% rise in the marginal rate will raise $200 billion, that implies the rich make something like $6.7 trillion. Not happening. We already discussed earlier in this thread that the rich make LESS than 1.645 trillion (not exactly sure how much less). 3% of whatever that number is, would be less than $50 billion. Basically a rounding error.

Numerous things.

For one: you have a real problem (revenue) just completely ignored on the grounds "we haven't cut spending yet".

For another: your demand for a balanced budget is something that's happened once in the last century; and you want to do it with less revenue than then.

Just put a small range on it. The government can only have a deficit or surplus of $100 billion. Sounds manageable.

For yet another: it's arbitrary,

The only way to avoid that would be to raise taxes considerably.

Cutting spending is not arbitrary in the least. The government should be forced to show that they can responsibly manage the money that hardworking Americans give them already, BEFORE they ask to be trusted with more.

Let's look at the two wars (CBO estimates the total cost there to be something like $2.4 trillion)

I think spending is around $200billion per year. How do you stop it overnight?
I suppose we could just fire everyone immediately and then leave them wherever they are and to their own devices.

If, on the other hand, you would like to fly them back to the states. If you would like to actually process discharges for the soldiers. If you would like to continue to provide the wounded with medical aid. If you'd like to actually bring back some of our expensive equipment... not to mention offering a transition rather than sudden withdrawal: you are going to have to keep spending money for some time in the future. In short: you can cut the wars from spending, but not by the 2012 budget.

The wars are an easy example: but not the only real example. Actual budget cuts take time to implement in some reasonable fashion.... well, except increases on rates of existing taxes. Those are per-quarter.

So on the one hand I don't think congress is serious about fixing the deficit (why? They can just pass the problem on to the next people instead); but it's also true that change won't happen overnight even if they were.

So perhaps the war spending can't stop overnight, but what about the other $1.445 trillion of the deficit?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Is the CBO terribly bad at math? If they think that a 3% rise in the marginal rate will raise $200 billion, that implies the rich make something like $6.7 trillion. Not happening. We already discussed earlier in this thread that the rich make LESS than 1.645 trillion (not exactly sure how much less). 3% of whatever that number is, would be less than $50 billion. Basically a rounding error.

I wouldn't expect that large an error in simple math.

Certainly the post-tax-cut drop in revenue once they went into effect was more than that: though causation can't be clearly shown by me.

Also: I'm not sure 2%-5% is really "rounding error". It's more than the percentage tax increase that's being fought. If 3% is so irrelevant: why fight against it as a marginal tax increase?

Just put a small range on it. The government can only have a deficit or surplus of $100 billion. Sounds manageable.

Ok. So hypothetically: the Chinese invade tomorrow. We can't raise taxes (they can't be trusted), and we can't fight a billion-man invasion on a 1.5 trillion dollar budget.

Now what?

I know "extraordinary" and "should be an exception". But that's exactly the rational used for most of what has made our current deficit... that it's extra-ordinary and should be an exception.

Cutting spending is not arbitrary in the least. The government should be forced to show that they can responsibly manage the money that hardworking Americans give them already, BEFORE they ask to be trusted with more.

Setting the tax rate at "whatever it happens to be right now" is arbitrary.

The choice of cutting vs raising, as you have made it, is arbitrary.

So perhaps the war spending can't stop overnight, but what about the other $1.445 trillion of the deficit?

I'm not in a position to cover every single bit of the budget with you... I'd have to look up each case. I'm sure there are some things we could kill by 2012 and others we could not.