So we hit the debt limit...

[Jacob]

Hmmm  so a majority oppose cuts to all the stated expenditures and a majority oppose any raises in taxes...

I think you guys are in a major rut.

Doesn't the poll say the majority (70+%) favours raising taxes on oil companies (and ending subsidies), businesses that own private jets and individuals making $250 K+/year?

[Grallon]

Doesn't the poll say the majority (70+%) favours raising taxes on oil companies (and ending subsidies), businesses that own private jets and individuals making $250 K+/year?

You are right - I misread.  Still, what they need are major tax raises across the board.  They're certainly not paying the ratio we are - and we don't live in the Third World.



G.

[Berkut]

Hmmm  so a majority oppose cuts to all the stated expenditures and a majority oppose any raises in taxes...

I think you guys are in a major rut.

Doesn't the poll say the majority (70+%) favours raising taxes on oil companies (and ending subsidies), businesses that own private jets and individuals making $250 K+/year?

Of course, the Dems have been saying that there is no need to raise taxes on anyone but the rich, and no need to cut anything as long as we raise the taxes on those damn rich people. There is plenty of money, as long as the rich pay their share!

[Berkut]

Doesn't the poll say the majority (70+%) favours raising taxes on oil companies (and ending subsidies), businesses that own private jets and individuals making $250 K+/year?

You are right - I misread.  Still, what they need are major tax raises across the board.  They're certainly not paying the ratio we are - and we don't live in the Third World.



G.

We only "need* major tax raises if we want to continue funding stuff at the level we currently are - if we are willing to spend less, then there is no need for major tax increases.

Sadly we have one party selling the message that we don't need to raise taxes, and the other party selling the message that we don't need to cut spending. And people are listening to whatever it is they want to hear.

[MadImmortalMan]

Of course, the Dems have been saying that there is no need to raise taxes on anyone but the rich, and no need to cut anything as long as we raise the taxes on those damn rich people. There is plenty of money, as long as the rich pay their share!

There is not enough revenue in that. I don't know any mainstream Dems claiming it.

[Berkut]

Of course, the Dems have been saying that there is no need to raise taxes on anyone but the rich, and no need to cut anything as long as we raise the taxes on those damn rich people. There is plenty of money, as long as the rich pay their share!

There is not enough revenue in that. I don't know any mainstream Dems claiming it.

You don't read to many Dem blogs then. Plenty have been arguing that for some time, although now that actual numbers are coming they seem to be backing off the "there is plenty of money if only the rich paid their share!" bullshit. I imagine it depends on how you define "mainstream Dem" I suppose. Certainly there were plenty of the talking heads claiming that.

And yes, of course there isn't enough revenue there.

[Razgovory]

Of course, the Dems have been saying that there is no need to raise taxes on anyone but the rich, and no need to cut anything as long as we raise the taxes on those damn rich people. There is plenty of money, as long as the rich pay their share!

There is not enough revenue in that. I don't know any mainstream Dems claiming it.

I dunno, the top 2% have something like 40% of the wealth.  If you can raise taxes on 40% of the assets in the US by only annoying 2% of the people it would seem like smart politics.  Still, I think an across the board tax increase is in order and perhaps a special tax on libertarians and people who like Ayn Rand.

[The Minsky Moment]

Doesn't the poll say the majority (70+%) favours raising taxes on oil companies (and ending subsidies), businesses that own private jets and individuals making $250 K+/year?

Taxing corporate jets wouldn't even rise to the level of a rounding error in the deficit.  Higher taxes on oil companies just rise to that level but not much past it.  So even assuming the US keeps a more modest deficit, to do it with just these things would mean the 250K+ people paying about another $1 trillion in tax every year.   There are about 2.2 million families in the US whose combined family earnings exceed $250,000.  Which means in order to close the distance just by taxing the 250K, those families would have to pay an average of over $450,000 additional tax per year.

Now I am no supply-sider, but that seems a bit excessive.

The only way to close the deficit is through both expenditure cuts and tax increases, and the latter will probably have to be broader than just the 250K people.

[Admiral Yi]

I heard on NPR that to close the deficit on the backs of only the 250K+ marginal rates would have to go to 90%.

Yes Grallon, the US public is in deep, stupid denial about the deficit.  I've been saying that all along, especially when posters say that the Republicans are trying to score easy political points.  I won't name any names, but we all know I'm talking about Razgovory.

[Fate]

That would be a loaded speculative question, so I don't think a good pollster would ask that. However, here's a relevant bit from the same poll:

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the general public doesn't see the connection between a balanced budget amendment and a subsequent curtailment of Medicare spending. 87% for not touching Medicare, 74% for the amendment.

Where's this money coming from? Increased revenues from massive tax cuts?

[mongers]

So is America broke yet ?

[The Minsky Moment]

I heard on NPR that to close the deficit on the backs of only the 250K+ marginal rates would have to go to 90%.

According to the census bureau in 2009, there were 2.375 million families that fell into that income stratum, with a mean income of $425,226.  If you multiply those numbers together you get almost exactly $1 trillion.  So taking into account that this group is probably already paying some tax, then total income tax rates (forget marginal) would probaby exceed 100%.

[Admiral Yi]

Where's this money coming from? Increased revenues from massive tax cuts?

Some senior organization is running ads demanding we do it through waste and abuse. 

[DontSayBanana]

I dunno, the top 2% have something like 40% of the wealth.  If you can raise taxes on 40% of the assets in the US by only annoying 2% of the people it would seem like smart politics.  Still, I think an across the board tax increase is in order and perhaps a special tax on libertarians and people who like Ayn Rand.

The problem is that it's a political football, since political fundraising from individuals predominantly comes from the 2% of people that would be ticked off.

I agree it's probably not the magic "anti-deficit" button the Democrats seem to think it is, though.  The numbers have also been mired in misleading or outright false statistics for so long that it's not even clear to most of us what kind of impact it would have on revenue, or how unfair it actually would be to top earners.  Even if you subjected an entire 40% of the taxable income to a 2% tax hike with no refunds, credits, or loopholes, you'd still only generate less than 1% of the previous year's tax revenue.

[Fate]

Sadly we have one party selling the message that we don't need to raise taxes, and the other party selling the message that we don't need to cut spending. And people are listening to whatever it is they want to hear.

What party is selling the message that we don't need to cut spending?