Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit
Gee. It seems the numbers don't add up for the U.S. Treasury.
Here's something to share with those who still believe -- and practice -- TRICKLE DOWN.
Add It Up: Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit
by Paul Buchheit
August 27, 2012, Common Dreams
Conservatives force the deficit issue, ignoring job creation, and insisting that tax increases on the rich wouldn't generate enough revenue to balance the budget. They're way off. But it takes a little arithmetic to put it all together. In the following analysis, data has been taken from a variety of sources, some of which may overlap or slightly disagree, but all of which lead to the conclusion that [font color="green"]withheld revenue, not excessive spending, is the problem.[/font color]
CONTINUED with details and links...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/27
Gosh. The numbers don't add up at all in favor of the U.S. Taxpayer, either.
Oh well. I do hope some of this gets picked up by our fellow DEMs in time for our convention.
Who knows? It might lead to a change in policy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
They keep talking about the richest 10%. "It has also been estimated that two-thirds of the annual $1.3 trillion in "tax expenditures" (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes) goes to the top quintile of taxpayers. Based on IRS apportionments, this calculates out to more than $450 billion for the richest 10 percent."
But according to Obama, only the richest 2% is really rich. The other 8% are only middle class and thus their taxes absolutely, positvely cannot ever be raised. If people making $160,000 a year were asked to pay the same tax rates now that they did back in 1999, it would just be devastating. It might very well mean the end of America, if not of the world. It simply cannot be done.
In fact, it is possible that many in those group absolutely NEED, yet ANOTHER tax CUT. In the upcoming Democratic Convention, Obama is almost sure to brag that he cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers - just like he promised to do when he ran for office. And he no doubt will say, once again, that the Bush tax cuts need to be extended for the bottom 98% (and even the richest 2% will still get tax cuts on their first $250,000 of income. Yes siree, under the Obama plan, the richest 1% will get an average tax cut of $28,728. And that does not even include the $4,000 they get from the accursed payroll tax cut.
Also their cakculation here, about the payroll taxes, seems to be forgetting something.
"
a) A non-regressive payroll tax could produce $150 billion in revenue.
Get ready for some math. The richest 10% made about $3.84 trillion in 2006. A $110,000 salary, which is roughly the cutoff point for payroll tax deductions, is also the approximate minimum income for the richest 10%. A 6.2% tax paid on $1.43 trillion ($110,000 times 13 million payees) is about $90 billion. The lost taxes on the remaining $2.41 trillion come to about $150 billion."
Get ready for a simple fact - the payroll tax rate on non-wage income is ZERO percent. Much of that $3.84 trillion is in the form of capital gains, interest and dividends. There is NO payroll tax on it at all. Not even on the first dime of it, much less the first $110,000 of it. To impose a payroll tax on it would also be tricky to collect, and would also mean a slight tax increase on those of us making much less. For example - myself. In 2011, I made wages of $15,814.01 and I got taxable interest income of $145.21 and dividends of 95 cents and lost $99.91 on the stock market. With payroll taxes at the current rate, I would have to pay another $22.22 on my interest and 15 cents tax on my dividends.
And then, of course, there are people like Mitt Romney http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1167192