Why the f**k are we even talking about raising top tax rates to 39%?!

[FarLeftFist]

As it is now, someone making $350k/yr pays the same tax rate as some who makes $100m/yr. Maybe that's the problem. But another problem is the fact that we are ONLY talking about raising taxes to 39% for people who make 100m/yr! Starting at $350k/yr the tax rate should be about 42% whereas the top tax rate for anyone making over $10-15m+/yr should be around 70%. This isn't radical, far from it. We've had much higher tax rates in our history. During Reagan's first year the top tax rate was 69.8%, then he dropped it to 50% for the remainder of his 6 years. (Then dropped the tax rate in his final year, 1989, to 28% which triggered another recession starting in June of 1990).

Even HE had a 50% top tax rate! Yet during a time when we are fighting 3 wars and have a big deficit we're only asking for billionaires to pay a 39% tax rate?!! There was a time when it was patriotic to ACTUALLY pay for wars and helping our vulnerable. It's ridiculous that we're even talking about this. Like Bill Maher said very simply: When Clinton was president the tax rate was at almost 40% and WE HAD money, then Bush came along, cut taxes and created another recession, blowing our entire budget.

I can't believe we're even having this debate, the answers and solutions are right in front of our faces. We don't need new solutions or ideas, we just need to look back at our history and see what works and what has worked before. If they handed me or probably any one of us the budget I would have it balanced with a surplus in under 24 hours. What we're witnessing is nothing more than a soap opera, complete with made up drama.

[FarLeftFist]

1. Also

When RWers say things like "But 50% of the country pays 70 something percent of the taxes" let them know thats because they also own 98% of the wealth in this country. The bottom 50% owns 2.5%.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Right on...

:kick:

[dkf]

4. We don't tax based on wealth...we tax on income.

[indepat]

26. Pubs certainly don't want to tax any of the trillions of dollars of wealth accumulated during

decades of low top marginal rates via an estate tax: they want the trillions of dollars the wealthy have accumulated via low top marginal rates and incidentally, which were funded solely through massive treasury borrowings, to forever remain in those wealthy families, unfettered by federal taxes of any kind. :patriot:

[The Magistrate]

27. They Track Closely Enough, Ma'am

And of course, it is quite possible to tax wealth directly....

[JDPriestly]

55. Actually, it isn't all that easy to value and tax assets.

other than real estate and cash.

People already pay property taxes and registration fees on their cars.

They have already paid income tax on their capital and they have to pay tax on earnings.

We could charge a small tax on imports of all kinds -- percentage of resale value declared at the port, or a sales or value added tax on everything, imported and domestic.

Or we can raise income taxes on the upper income brackets. That's the easiest way to increase tax revenue. And of course, we should end the tax breaks for big corporations and oil.

As I recall the Bush tax reductions for the very rich were justified by the argument that the super-rich earn their income from their investments in corporations, and since the corporations pay such high taxes, it's double-taxation to tax the rich.

Of course, as we now see, an awful lot of the biggest corporations do not pay taxes at all, and some receive what amount to cash subsidies.

[The Magistrate]

79. Estate Taxes Are The Traditional Method, Sir

And taxes on the transfer of assets from hand to hand, in effect a sales tax on purchase of shares and bonds and such, is another.

At the present state of computerization, it would be no great feat to determine, on some date certain, or randomly appointed, what assets a person owned, and what their worth at present market value was, and require a surrender of some portion of them in tax.

The removal of special rates for capital gains would be another measure, both feasible and reasonable.

The 'double tax' argument has always seemed a joke in poor taste to me: a total in tax is simply collected in two stages, either of which can vary somewhat in rate according the income of the person, human or otherwise, required to pay that portion of the levy.

[JDPriestly]

86. The worry over debt to GDP ratio is just a ruse to steal our

Social Security money.

If you look at the chart that compares the debt to GDP ratio of different countries, you see that most of the countries that are highly developed with complex transportation systems, universal education, high quality health care, scientific research, lots of internet access, etc. have high debt to GDP ratios.

And if we lower those ratios, we will also considerably lower the standards of living in the countries that are now developed.

This is a scare, one of those ideological fads that sweeps the country now and then. Except that this one has a mean, cruel, sadistic purpose -- to frighten the elderly and poor and to scare them into allowing the rich to steal their retirement and health care funds from them.

Such meanness and stupidity I have never seen.

And Obama is part of it. He appointed Timothy Geithner to the Treasury Dept. And Timothy Geithner was chosen by PETE PETERSON (Google Pete Peterson and Social Security if you want to know the significance.) to head the New York Fed.

This whole thing is just a criminal enterprise to steal the Social Security funds from the baby boomers. And Democrats are sitting by and letting it pass unchallenged.

[The Magistrate]

87. True Enough, Sir

The long and short of it is they do not want to pay off their markers, which are the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund.

[JDPriestly]

54. People who have that much wealth get high income from it.

A lot of people are confused about the difference between wealth and income.

Lots of wealth theoretically generates lots of income. That's why the we equate wealth with having high income.

We are struggling for tax revenue because we import most of the products and even some of the services (outsourcing) we consume without taxing them. We should tax imports and services performed outside the country. It would not take much of a tax, and the tax should be imposed at the port of entry, not at the point of sale.

[dkf]

76. Unless they buy munis.

The dream is a $5+ million portfolio in tax free munis.

[JDPriestly]

78. True, but then, it appears now that the munis which used to be

considered so safe for the rich, are not so safe after all.

If you look at the chart on debt to GDP, you see that our federal government only owes about 57.9% of debt to GDP. State debt is about 33.?%. So, state and local bonds are not as secure as was once assumed.

Problem is that wages are down and jobs are hard to get. Tax revenues have not risen with productivity. They have not risen as anticipated at the time debts were made. That is because wages, in spite of higher productivity, have not risen as expected and therefore income taxes are down.

Also, internet sales have reduced states' sales tax revenues. I suspect that the foreclosures and housing crisis may have lowered some of the property tax revenue. So, munis? I don't have the money to invest in any meaningful way. So I am not well informed on this.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. And of course, wealth has NOTHING to do with income.

:eyes:

[dkf]

77. Wealth is generally the by product of income

[The Magistrate]

80. Actually, No, Ma'am, Unless You Mean Income Over Generations, Or Owing To Capital Appreciation

[quakerboy]

70. But only based on certain types of income

yaknow?

[MADem]

8. Now that's a fine statistic! Into the tool bag with that one!

Your pie chart is quite fine, too!

[FarLeftFist]

11. And that is 2007. The gap has widened.

[The Big Vetolski]

25. And some people here think capitalism is SUSTAINABLE?

This is just a natural consequence of capitalism. It can't last. We want something else! We want something else!

[Kaleko]

34. US-style capitalism is unsustainable, that's for sure.

The Germans call it Heuschreckenkapitalismus: Locust Capitalism, because it allows corporations and financial titans to behave like swarms of locusts moving from country to country in order to devour everything of worth, until, finally, the most powerful swarms are forced to turn on their own homeland to cannibalize its worker and consumer base. This is happening in the US and Britain.

There are other styles of capitalism that will be developed taking cues from existing models (e.g. Scandinavia, Germany, Canada) which combine the most sensible features of socialism and free-but-regulated enterprise into a system that will emerge after the collapse of the current structures - which is inevitable IMO.

[TBF]

61. "Sensible Capitalism" is an oxymoron. nt

[Kaleko]

67. Maybe you have a better word for what wants to emerge naturally

from a more conscious and informed population once the current system collapses?

This crisis is also an amazing opportunity for humankind, and we can work together on that vision.

[TBF]

84. What I would like to see "emerge naturally" is an end to capitalism and rise of the workers. nt

[pansypoo53219]

68. this is crapitaqlism.

forget trickle down pee. it's just shit now.

[surrealAmerican]

35. Nice pie chart.

That really says it all, doesn't it.

[sabo_tabby]

3. Top tax rate in 50s was something like 90%, and no one complained...

The fat cats need to be bled white. How's that Cream song go? "Tax the rich/Feed the poor/Til there are no/Rich no more."

Won't happen while the Rebugs are permitted to exist as a political party.

[Electric Monk]

5. Welcome to DU, but it was by Ten Years After, not Cream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzrUqAtUcpU

[FarLeftFist]

6. Or possibly since the economy seems like a living breathing entity

Maybe we should do tax rates in the same fashion as a EKG/heart rate monitor, every 10 years just make the top rate 90% for 2 years before dropping back down to 70%.

[21st Century FDR]

7. Right lyrics, wrong band

That wasn't Cream. It was Alvin Lee & Ten Years After

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBAwv49slC8

[sabo_tabby]

15. Apologies to all/nt

[quaker bill]

21. Actually, I am pretty sure there were complaints

but people paid.

[The Magistrate]

28. Not Only Complaints, Sir --- Clever Accountants

But the effective rates were greater than today, and most shelters required actual productive investment.

[slackmaster]

33. Nobody actually paid it

That was the top MARGINAL rate for earnings above an amount that almost literally nobody was paid.

[Synicus Maximus]

47. But in the 50s they could deduct things like interest on all credit

etc., could dollar cost average over three year periods etc.

[Zebedeo]

52. "Tax the rich/Feed the poor/Til there are no/Rich no more"

OK. After we do that, how do we feed the poor?

[DeadEyeDyck]

9. why not tax all and just return what you need in

food, clothing, housing and fuel.

[sabo_tabby]

14. I've wondered that myself...

"From each according to his abilities/to each according to his needs." What's hard about that?

There is much merit to it and much good that can be done with it.
o All incomes, public and private, from whatever source derived, go into the General Fund.
o Individuals and families submit annual budgets based on geographical location, family size (no allowance for 2nd child though), distance to work/availability of mass transit (no allowance for car if within three miles of a public transit station), union dues, special dietary needs (no allowance for meat unless prescribed by physician and reviewed by board).
o Allowable expenses are subsidized, and each individual/family gets an allowance for discretionary spending.

The government would have as much money as it needed; no one would go without, and the government would be able to properly direct economic output for higher goals than mere fat-cat greed.

This dream won't come near to coming true until the last Rebug dies of old age/bitterness.

[Dorian Gray]

23. That sounds like a fantastic world!!!!

Can't wait to live in it!!!! Any day now!!!

[Serve The Servants]

24. Let's just stick with taxing the shit out of the uber wealthy.

As well as making sure corporations pay their fair share while preventing them from moving jobs out of the country. They can afford it and if managed correctly, no one would go without and we would still have the funding for research, infrastructure, education, etc.

Personally, I don't relish the idea of someone telling me I can't have any money to buy a steak or a car or anything else without a "valid" reason. We can pay into a collective fund through taxation and still have the freedom to spend the rest of our income any way we see fit without the approval of an individual or committee who may not possess the same ideology as myself.

As much I am for implementing elements of socialism in this country, when it comes to outright communism, I say no thanks. I'd just as soon revolt against what you've described above in your post than our current cannibalistic economic system.

[sabo_tabby]

32. I appreciate your opinon but...

Think of where this sort of individualism has got us. Your steak has got us to factory farms and veal-fattening pens, where bovine methane (forpiddysake!) is a significant contributor to AGW. Cow farts! We need steaks so badly we ruin the ecosystem with cow farts?

And while we're at it, how much damage have we done with our idividualistic insistence on cars belching carbon into the atmosphere? It's this very individualism - the need to have OUR car to do what WE want and the consequences be hanged - that keeps us from moving forward in a positive direction not just for our country but for the planet.

It's the THINKING that needs to change. Thinking beyond ourselves. Beyond borders, beyond humanity.

It's hard to go through our day and think "Is what I'm doing the best thing I can do for the earth?" Sometimes, for example, I just want a bag of potato chips. What's the harm, right? The harm is in all the carbon sent into the atmosphere in making an otherwise healthy and renewable plant into a toxic indulgence, packaging it and bringing it to market, and then putting its packaging (not the skin - you never see that - I mean the OTHER packaging) and putting it into a landfill that will outlast the sun burning out. That's just one example on one small facet, but it's this kind of communitarian (not communist) thinking we need to start getting in the habit of.

The planet is bigger than we are, and our needs are irrelevant to it, to say nothing of our mere greedy desires.

No potato chips for me.

Because it's true that all individualism devolves to is dog-eat-dog-ism, greed-ism and I-want-whatever-I-want-and-want-it-now-ism. This is what's got us into the mess we're in.

The corporations will always find a way to bribe someone out of paying taxes, the uber-rich will find a lawyer that can convince a jury that black is white and the billionaire really is a pauper. Fair share my nose. It still leaves the uber-wealthy UBER-WEALTHY, and THAT'S the problem.

[Serve The Servants]

39. Sorry, no sale.

I value my individualism, and no offense but the world in which you describe seems like a miserable place. One can still be an individual while not being greedy as well as being a good steward of the Earth. I hate to break it to you but as long as Humanity exists we will still consume resources and leave a carbon footprint no matter how careful we are or what non-essentials we give up. There's good news though, according to futurist Ray Kurzweil the super intelligent nano-machines will eventually turn us all into the Borg and you will get your wish soon enough.

[ut oh]

74. You exlude a lot of what individualism brings us

to try to make your point stronger.

Without individualism we'd not have art, or music. Without individualism we'd not have invention.

Communism can be just as bad. Look at Soviet Russia, those in power were viewed to be corrupt fatcats, it was the The Party that had the fatcats, not Corporation like in the U.S.

Also, making severely exaggerated points does nothing to convince others. '...putting it into a landfill that will outlast the sun burning out.' This is a completely false statement and makes you appear to not have a good grasp on reality.

Further you mention thinking beyond humanity and that's great, but the message you also seem to be conveying is that humanity is irrelevent beyond and therefore we should become communist to avert individualism and greedy desire. While in the grand scheme of the Universe, humanity may be less than a single grain of sand in terms of relevance, again by driving that point home, you're not serving your point very well.

Continuing to speak in absolutes further degrades your argument as you come across as 'religious' as the fundies.

Total communism is not the way to go, just as pure capitalism is not the way to go. You may wish to curtail certain aspects of individualism because they're BAD, but it's a double edged sword. Do you stifle humanity in the process and make us nothing more than drones in a hive?

"The corporations will always find a way to bribe someone out of paying taxes, the uber-rich will find a lawyer that can convince a jury that black is white and the billionaire really is a pauper"

Again, absolutes don't help your argument. And even in a communist system, there will be people who will try to take advantage of that system, because you can't remove the one variable the kills capitalism.... human nature.

[JDPriestly]

58. We don't need capitalism or socialism.

But we do need a tax system that balances the distribution of money enough so that the middle class and poor can survive and maybe buy enough products to keep the capitalists' money busy and earning something.

I assure you that when China and India really build up their economies and start consuming their own products, they are not going to need the American or international capitalists to simply take profits and live high on the hog in foreign countries.

The whole free trade plan has some serious limitations. I don't think that the consequences of investing so much overseas and so little here were thought through totally thoroughly.

[Dreamer Tatum]

30. Enjoy your stay. Try to disguise yourself better. nt

[Enthusiast]

49. I got the same impression.

Freepers think we're all crazy far left 'reds'. Apparently they don't actually read our posts.

[Serve The Servants]

53. The scary thing is

I fear this person is legit.

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. And what's wrong with that?

Our entire problem today is that we insist on choosing the middle as the starting point for discussion, while the other side are so far out in right field they've left the park and are halfway out of the parking lot. We could use a few more real communists around here to remind us that FDR was NOT a socialist, and the is an entire spectrum of thought to the left of the Democrats. We learned 60 years ago that when you're going toe to toe with fascists, it's a good thing to have a few hundred million commies at your side.

[Serve The Servants]

66. I want neither fascism nor communism.

I do not need to support extreme ideologies in order to leverage my way against the opposition. "Do as we say or we'll sick the commies on you."

I want an economic system that blends socialism with well regulated capitalism. As I identify it - The European model. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I generally do not support a system that traverses just being an economic blueprint and ventures into an outright political system, thereby dictating how I should live my life via controlling my finances. Yes, I mean communism.

Lifestyle choices dictated by committee? Get real. As far as I'm concerned we have enough of that shit as it is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

89. You misunderstand. If there are no communists out there making

communist noises, then the RW idiots can get away with calling socialist and Democratic stands 'communist' and no one will know the difference because they've never heard a real communist.

So you want to silence the communists so the RW morons can continue to call Democrats 'communist'?

[Enthusiast]

57. But I want my meat!

Friends give me deer because I can no longer hunt. And I can barely walk so I need a car because there is no mass transit here at all. Unless you want me to starve. Do you want me to starve?

[riderinthestorm]

71. Wow, what a dream. Welcome to DU. Creative thinking at it's best. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. Give all my money to the government and ask for an allowance?

Fuck that noise.

[Serve The Servants]

42. Pending committee approval of course N/T

[sylveste]

36. because

most people aspire to more than just a meager existence. no thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Because of thirty years of ideology

trickle down failed in the 19th century... see Grant and his ... depression.

It failed under hoover... (1929 anyone?)

But people have no shame any more... and that little thing of we are in this together is gone.

Am afraid we are no longer, really. the United States... but a collection of states with a collection of individuals. The last time this shit went on we ended up in a small soiree called a civil war.

[FarLeftFist]

12. So true.

It's amazing that all of these answers are right in front of our eyes. Even what NOT to do. Reagan cut taxes in 1989, BOOM! recession started in 1990. Clinton raised taxes, BOOM! America was prosperous once again, Bush lowered taxes, BOOM! another recession, etc. They are "job creationists", they really believe that lowering taxes creates jobs even after being proven wrong over and over and over and over again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. You are dealing with religious dogma

that is why

[JDPriestly]

59. Great post. It goes back a lot further than that.

[stockholmer]

16. one large problem,no matter the tax rate was (even 90% top)they never collected more than 20% of GDP

Throughout the history of the last 65+ years, whatever the tax rates were for individuals and corporations have been (even when the top income tax rate was 90% in the 1950's), the most total revenue the Federal government has ever taken in is around 20% of the GDP. It fluctuates between 15% and 20% no matter what they do. Plus, the US GDP is now, as a percentage, composed to higher level of financial, banking transactions (not tangible good production, etc) than at any other time in its history.

In regards to this chart, bear in mind that the uptick in revenues on this chart post 2011 are based on extremely optimistic economic projections that IMHO will NEVER happen.




It is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Especially spending on empiric wars, and debt service. Plus, when the Fed fund rate peaked under Volcker in the middle of 1981 at 20%, the US national debt was only 1 trillion, today it is 14 times that (soon to 16 times that) , and even a move of the Fed's Fund Rate (it is now and has near zero% since the 2008 crisis) up to only 5% or 6% (hardly the 20%+ that the PIIGS are paying) would mean well over a trillion in debt service payments over just ONE year. If/when the funds rate does double digits, say hi to $1.5 to 2 trillion a YEAR in debt service payments alone.

If you are holding long term US treasuries, you will be gasping soon, unfortunately. Bill Gross of PIMCO (director of the biggest bond fund in the world) pulled completely out of ALL US debt over 3 months ago.


For just 2011, over $1.2 trillion will be spent on defense, black ops, previous military debt, etc. The overall deficit is $1.7+ trillion. $200 to 300 billion year in lost income tax revenue is not going to come close to making serious dent in the deficit, and ergo, the cumulative debt.

I completely agree with you that the wealthiest individuals should have not received extensions of the Bush tax cuts, but this is just a start. The US has to stop the empiric war spending and finally hold the financial systemic controllers to account.


What is needed is a 1% Tobin tax (a Wall Street sales tax, if you will) on all financial transactional turnover (with a $1 million bottom floor exemption on the first million dollars).

Combine that with at least a 50 to 60% reduction in war machine spending, and you have a balanced budget, the ability to start to pay down the national debt, and finally justice where the banksters are forced to pay their fair share of national upkeep. As of now they exist in an almost pure fascistic state, where they keep private 'profits' in the trillions, and yet get bailed out by having the trillions of real losses dumped onto the citizens.


This is a sample of the Bush income tax cuts

1998 - 828.6 in billions of constant dollars (1998 = 100)
1999 - 860.5
2000 - 950.9
2001 - 915.1 Bush tax cuts passed in June 2001
2002 - 777.7
2003 - 703.1
2004 - 698.1
2005 - 773.8
2006 - 844.0 5 years later tax revenue was still down from 2001

http://www.koch2congress.com/7.html

Taking the highest year (2001) and subtracting 2006 (844.0 5 years later tax revenue was still down from 2001) you come up with only a $106 billion difference. Taking the lowest year (2004) from the 2001 totals you get $252 billion. These numbers are dwarfed by the spending on the war machine alone.

[PoliticAverse]

19. Your post highlights the problem...

of comparing tax rates from one period to another.

Sure tax rates might have been 90% at one point but that doesn't tell you what the tax law was at the time and
what 'loopholes' there were that let people avoid the 90% rate.

Also the higher income tax rates are the more companies switch compensation to other methods like stock, stock options,
non-taxed 'perks', etc.

The problem of our huge debt of 14 trillion is definitely being mitigated by the extremely low interest rates now.
Once rates start moving up again our debt service becomes a real problem.

As to the Tobin tax is no one really knows how much revenue that will bring in. It might just have the effect of killing
off most short term trading.

Although I would agree with you on defense spending the possibility of large a large reduction in defense spending in the
near future seems non-existent.

Unfortunately I think it's only a matter of time until the US eventually defaults, which is I think is preferable to
attempting to inflate the debt away.

[JDPriestly]

64. What would be the problem with killing off most short-term trading?

[quaker bill]

22. It is also a Tax Expenditure problem

At current rates and structure, tax expenditures are actually larger than tax receipts. The most recent analysis I have read posts the total from tax breaks at 1.2 trillion, larger than the roughly 1.0 trillion collected. Just slicing into loopholes could raise 100's of billions without changing rates at all. Elimination of all of them would roughly balance the budget on paper. On taxation, I actually think the biggest problem is a capital gains rate that is too low. At current rates financial speculation is massively favored and subsidized as a core economic activity over productive activities (labor and business profits). Thus we have a GDP increasingly made up of financial and bank transactions, as you state correctly.

I also concur that there is a spending problem. Our maintaining an outsized cold war era military empire is simply unsustainable. The Soviet Union failed in an attempt to maintain a mere shadow of where we are at. They had to strip the civilian economy bare to do so and people will only tolerate that for limited periods of time under dire circumstances, times like WWII. The vast bulk of the debt currently accumulated ties nicely to the growth in military spending initiated by Reagan. Further, having a massive military tempts those in power toward military adventures, because we actually can do it. If military resources were sufficient but far more scarce, the folks in charge would think far longer and harder about pulling the trigger, and the shape of what we might do with the military would change. Solo ventures would likely end. This I think would be a very good thing.

[JDPriestly]

63. Have you looked at this list which compares the debt to GDP rates

of different countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt

The more developed and industrially efficient the country, the higher the debt to GDP level.

This whole debt to GDP thing is absurd.

It is a matter of reduced revenues.

Look at your own chart. Clinton balanced the budget and tax revenue rose.

Bush came into office and the revenues fell way down.

Since Obama was inaugurated, tax revenues have started to rise again. But it took a lot of government stimulus to get them to rise again.

The Bush tax cuts caused government revenues to drop. Your own post shows it.

I totally agree that we need to give up our absurd militaristic fantasies about world\ domination. We need to get serious about developing alternative energy so that we don't have to completely lose out as an economy as oil becomes more and more expensive to extract from the ground.

We should study the history of the world. England could not keep its empire intact. Neither could any other European country. We won't be able to either. It's a fools game.

Unless the whole point is to transfer the money from our treasury to friends of the president (name interchangeable).

[stockholmer]

82. whilst the public debt-based deficit went down under Clinton,intra-governmental debt went up, wiping

out the surplus. It was and is an accounting parlour trick, played by BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats.


as of 07/14/2011

9,750,503,934,099.81 public debt

4,592,449,951,542.17 intragovernmental holdings

14,342,953,885,641.98 total national debt

go here to the US treasury Dept and plug in any dates to see what I mean and where I got that number from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiscal Year .. End Date .. Claimed Surplus .. Public Debt .. Intra-gov Holdings .. Total National Debt

FY1997 .. 09/30/1997 .. n/a .. $3.789667T .. $1.623478T .. $5.413146T

FY1998 .. 09/30/1998 .. $69.2B .. $3.733864T .. $1.792328T .. $5.526193T (increase of $113B)

FY1999 .. 09/30/1999 .. $122.7B .. $3.636104T .. $2.020166T .. $5.656270T (increase of $130.1B)

FY2000 .. 09/29/2000 .. $230.0B .. $3.405303T .. $2.268874T .. $5.674178T (increase of $17.9B)

FY2001 .. 09/28/2001 .. $3.339310T .. $2.468153T .. $2.468153T .. $5.807463T (increase of $133.3B)




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://books.google.se/books?id=GAV2ZUZ6qPIC&pg=PA27378&lpg=PA27378&dq=Republicans+are+all+running+this+year+and+next+and+saying+surplus,+surplus.+Look+what+we+have+done.+It+is+false.+The+actual+figures+show+that+from+the+beginning+of+the+fiscal+year+until+now+we+had+to+borrow+$127,800,000,000&source=bl&ots=0Ph4YQaTRF&sig=5leuoRCOaEcY3Y0a26CZvX1LiBo&hl=en&ei=63MhTqHhGI7IswbEnISfAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Republicans%20are%20all%20running%20this%20year%20and%20next%20and%20saying%20surplus%2C%20surplus.%20Look%20what%20we%20have%20done.%20It%20is%20false.%20The%20actual%20figures%20show%20that%20from%20the%20beginning%20of%20the%20fiscal%20year%20until%20now%20we%20had%20to%20borrow%20%24127%2C800%2C000%2C000&f=false

So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101500b.htm

An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxes being paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa080899.htm

Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1654

When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/20/news/economy/social_security_election/index.htm?cnn=yes


Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program's surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intragovernmental debt is every bit as real as the public debt. It's not cancelled out simply because the government owes the money to itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033003291.html

The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations. If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml

[JDPriestly]

85. That means that taxes have to go up.

The poor and middle classes cannot survive if their taxes are raised by much, but the rich can. So the taxes on the rich will go up.

There really isn't any other choice.

They should not be talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare. That really scares people who are helpless -- mostly very elderly people who have never had enough money or influence to be responsible for the situation and should not be made anxious by the mistakes our government has made.

In fact, of course it isn't a mistake.

The government was simply "investing" the surplus Social Security money. The unfortunate thing is that it was mostly "invested" in perishables -- war and foreign-made junk. Had they invested it here -- in a better public transportation system that could serve the baby-boomers in their later years (do you seriously think we will all be driving in our 80s and 90s?), a better health-care system to begin with, we would be much better off.

My point is that all of the countries that are developed, that have extensive national transportation systems, universal education, wide-spread access to medical care, democratic governments and processes, scientific research at the national level, all of these things that make us great and powerful countries ----- have huge debt to GDP ratios.

Look at the list that I posted. Of course the debt to GDP ratio of South Africa and Libya are lower. South Africa exports gold but has a rather primitive infrastructure in much of the country. Libya exports oil and also has a comparatively primitive infrastructure.

Where would you rather live and invest your retirement money? South Africa or the US? I'm sure South Africa is a great place to visit, but most people would probably prefer to live in the US.

[JDPriestly]

88. Maybe instead of borrowing from China

we should learn to make a few things for our own consumption right here and tax imports enough to equalize the cost that is added to our home-produced goods to pay our taxes.

I rather like having a modern plumbing system. Don't you?

Well the infrastructure for that system has to be maintained. And that costs money -- either the homeowner's or the city's. That's just one example of the kind of "luxury" that makes our lives good.

As long as we import so much manufactured stuff from countries like Mexico or China that do not have such a complex and wonderful infrastructure, we can on the one hand gorge our bellies with cheap goodies, but on the other build up enormous debt.

Our debt is the price we pay for "free" trade and cheap imports. Don't forget it.

[Go2Peace]

72. Now hold on a minute..... There are some RW fallicies (unintentionally) included in your arguments

Revenue as a percentage of GDP does not say much and is actually somewhat deceptive.

If you increase taxes on the wealthy, revenue could climb 15%, while GDP also climbs, and it would look like no change for the better occurred.

Interestingly, a search on tax rates vs government revenue exposes the source of this material, RIGHT WING THINK TANKS!

Here is another graph from a University discussion.



http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax%20Rates%20and%20Revenues.htm

[stockholmer]

83. the 'surplus' was a phony number (see my post above), and inflation-adjusted GDP is so not going up

at the rate you hope for. The GDP is calculated in debased, devalued US dollars. Furthermore, one of the end-games of the Fed and Treasury is to pay the US national debt back in debased dollars. But that will CRUSH the standard of living, as real purchasing power is destroyed, and will cause a huge flight from all dollar-based debt.

This will be disastrous and violent, unfortunately, as the main thing allowing the US to keep on spending and printing is the status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, a status back up by empiric gun-boat power-projection and petrol trading. This very same empiric dollar-military hegemony is a bitter catch-22, as the cost (at least $1.2 trillion a year in war machine/security spending alone) is further leading to the bankrupting of the American state.


In 1970, the average US car cost $3900 and it took 114 ounces of gold to buy. In 2011, that same car is around $29,000 yet takes less than 19 ounces of gold to buy. Hello dollar debasement!

Gold has increased by double digits as a percentage gained for the last 10 years in a row. Can you say the same of the NASDAQ? The Dow? The S&P? The US dollar? US Treasuries? The average US IRA? LOL! How about your paycheck? How about the value of the average American house?


All global fiat currencies are being utterly debased and destroyed right before your eyes. Throughout history, every single fiat currency has collapsed in a violent plummet. Every one. This time will be no different.


my previous post on the false 'surplus' claims :


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1494399&mesg_id=1501836

[Petrushka]

17. K & R

:kick:

[aquart]

18. That's them. I'm talking 90%. We're at war.

[iwishiwas]

20. Even regular repugs are in fear of the teaparty folk who are running

the country now.

[bullwinkle428]

31. K&R. Here are the brackets as they currently stand, just for

everyone's information:

Tax Bracket Single Married Filing Jointly Head of Household

10% Bracket $0 – $8,500 $0 – $17,000 $0 – $12,150
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500 $17,000 – $69,000 $12,150 – $46,250
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600 $69,000 – $139,350 $46,250 – $119,400
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400 $139,350 – $212,300 $119,400 – $193,350
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150 $212,300 – $379,150 $193,350 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150+ $379,150+ $379,150+

[defendandprotect]

51. Somewhere in the Eisenhower years, GOP gave the poor the honor of paying taxes ...!!!

And according to Wm. Greider in "Who Will Tell the People?" ...

In 1978, Democrats colluded with the GOP to break the tax code for the benefit

of the wealthy ---

"Dems were fully in power -- and this was well before Reagan" --

"Democratic Majorities have supported this great shift in tax burden every step

of the way and nothing demonstrates the atrophied condition of moderen democracy

more starkly that these facts --"



Post '77 Tax Code -- Carter Years
------------------------------

Represented $70 billion in tax cuts to corporations and to one in 10 families at

top of income ladder --

1% of population's taxes fell 36% while middle income ladder experienced a 7% increase

in their Federal taxes -- A Turning point in tax policies --

[myrna minx]

37. K&R n.t

[pasto76]

38. its really only 2 wars.

I was in them; our involvement in NATO libya action is a far cry.

[L0oniX]

40. At the time of WW1 there was an 80% tax on income over 1 million.

As it is right now if you retire at 65 you can still work and earn up to $12,000 and then your taxes go up to 50%.

[Jim_Shorts]

41. But, But, they need that $ to create new jobs ..lol

The old saying "you need money to make money" doesn't tell the whole story about how much easier it is, simple compound interest & dividends or the latest Harvard Grad Hedge Fund reserved only for the rich and taxed @ the ever lower capital gains rate of 18%. Top tax rates are not nearly high enough considering all the investment options they have these days and they only pay the higher rate at the top portion of their income.

Alec Baldwin once said : democrats use government to help better the lives of its people ....republicans use government to make money

(not easy to tell the difference these days)

[julian09]

44. They only want to raise tax rate from 35% to 39% on rich only

on the portion over 250k. That FOUR PERCENT increase isn't mentioned enough, REPUGS make it sound as if the proposed increase is Draconian, while their earnings are the draconian part.

[markpkessinger]

45. ... in Singapore ;) n/t

[Syntheto]

43. Wow...

...too bad you're not in charge.

[fascisthunter]

46. amazing isn't it?

[Enthusiast]

48. Kicked and Recommended! Great OP!

Well, this is what happens when the media is completely co-opted in the interest of wealthy individuals and corporations.

Grover Norquist was on Washington Journal this morning insisting that Obama had raised taxes so high that it was stifling innovation and small business.

This is kind of distorted message that every single adult American has to hear almost constantly. The American people do not have a clue about tax rates under Reagan and Clinton, let alone under Eisenhower.

What is it? 60% of Americans believe Obama raised their taxes? What it always comes down to is the massive misinformation campaign that we have to live with.

Yet, considering all that, the American people still want taxes raised on the wealthy!

[defendandprotect]

50. Cutting taxes on wealthy creates recession, even depressions -- what could be clearer!!

We need to return to progressive taxation -- much higher taxes on rich/corporations.

And -- end these wars!!

[geckosfeet]

62. There is no debate. The media is peddeling the 'tax cuts kill jobs' meme,

and the rethuglicans are sending them the scripts, err, press releases. The tea party morans believe every last word that comes coming out of insanities and o'liers faux mouths. The rethugs in congress are as stupid as the tea party anyway. There is no debate. Just rethuglican demands for lower taxes, fewer jobs, taking prosperity away from the American people and handing it over to corporate america.

BTW, when Clinton left office we were on track for reducing the deficit (surplus) as far as the eye could see. The rethugs were drooling and couldn't wait to get there hands on that. The did and they have stashed in their banks and are not going to give it back. That would be class warfare. :sarcasm:

I say that if we cut military spending by 25 - 50%, end the stupid military excursions we are calling wars, raise tax rates as you say, that the unemployment rate will be 4% by 2016. No facts to back that up (aside from the flourishing economy during the Clinton administration) - just intuition.

[Jack Sprat]

65. Some 50% on a million to ten million

and 65% on greater than 10 million. That would be a fair tax rate. Then I would make some of the lower rate ladders closer, so as to lump the people at the bottom of one ladder into a major hike like the 15-25 and 25-35 percentages run. For the present, I'd keep rates stable for less than 250K. If you're knocking down over 250K per year, you can't be hurting unless you're real careless. Then, I'd eliminate the numerous tax deductions and tax breaks for corporations and individuals. Then, I'd float around in space observing from a distance.

[okieinpain]

69. i rec the post because I believe in peoples right to speak freely

but I don't agree with the idea at all. 39% is too much if you think a person or org should pay more then tax them based on what they do with the money. if they employ lots of people and pay good wages and benefits tax them at a smaller rate. if they are just handing out big bonuses and running from cheap labor to cheap labor locations hit them for 39% or a little more.

but I don't believe in taking a persons reward from their hard work just to make someone else happy.

[Go2Peace]

73. I don't believe the myth that the rich got there by working harder

For every story of a rich person who gave up 20 years of much of their free time I can find another who didn't, got a lucky break, had connections, or worse, aggresively pursued wealth by taking advantage of others or hurting society around them.

Then I can provide lots of stories of working people who worked just as hard, sometimes with two jobs, were down on their luck, had no high society or rich connections, or decided not to cheat or hurt people around them to get ahead.


"upward mobility" is another MYTH.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

[okieinpain]

75. yes and that's all true but that doesn't mean we can just take

from one to give to another, what would that make us. the real funny thing is most of poorer amoung us would fight you harder if the shoe was on the other foot.

I understand the concern about the rich getting richer, but just taking from them isn't working for me.

[B Calm]

81. Freedom isn't Free, they need to quit whining and pay their damn taxes!