5.6% millionaire tax....

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
A few days ago, the US closed the 2011 fiscal year having added $1.23 trillion in debt.
Approx. $100 billion a month in new debt.

So, the 5.6% tax being proposed on millionaires will allow for 4 months of spending.

Whoop-de-fricking-do. We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.


From the CBO:

Dear Mr. Leader:



As you requested, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the budget impact of S. 1660, the American Jobs Act of 2011, as introduced in the Senate on October 5, 2011. CBO and JCT estimate that, in total, enacting S. 1660 would decrease deficits by about $6 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see enclosed table). That estimated deficit reduction of $6 billion over the coming decade is the net effect of $447 billion in additional spending and tax cuts in titles II through III and $453 billion in additional tax revenue from the surtax specified in title IV.



S. 1660 is similar to S. 1549, the American Jobs Act of 2011, as introduced in the Senate on September 13, 2011. Provisions in title I, II, and III related to both federal revenues and spending are identical for the two bills. The only difference between the bills is that S. 1660 replaces the provisions in title IV (Offsets) of S. 1549 with a surtax of 5.6 percent, starting in 2013, on a taxpayer?s modified adjusted gross income in excess of $1 million (or $500,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return), indexed for inflation. JCT estimates that title IV of S. 1660 would increase revenues by $453 billion over the 2012-2021 period, whereas title IV of S. 1549 would increase revenues by $450 billion over that period.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
We have BOTH a revenue and a spending problem.

SSD, can you post a link for your source on this?

Thanks.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,518
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
I agree, but we would be fools to agree to any tax hikes until the irresponsible spending patterns are curbed.

:0074 -- exactly

The one tax increase I would go along with and would also consider fair is removing the cap on social security tax.

I woner why they haven't done that?

I see no reason to stop tax at $106,000 of income. I would be for taxing all income above that level also--and using revenue exclusively for its intent--shoring up social security.
--and 1st politician wanting to borrow or divert it somewhere else--has all their assets forfeited.
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
:0074 -- exactly

The one tax increase I would go along with and would also consider fair is removing the cap on social security tax.

I woner why they haven't done that?

I see no reason to stop tax at $106,000 of income. I would be for taxing all income above that level also--and using revenue exclusively for its intent--shoring up social security.
--and 1st politician wanting to borrow or divert it somewhere else--has all their assets forfeited

.


I could not agree more
 

pd1

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 24, 2001
1,293
61
48
68
missouri
:0074 -- exactly

The one tax increase I would go along with and would also consider fair is removing the cap on social security tax.

I woner why they haven't done that?

I see no reason to stop tax at $106,000 of income. I would be for taxing all income above that level also--and using revenue exclusively for its intent--shoring up social security.
--and 1st politician wanting to borrow or divert it somewhere else--has all their assets forfeited.



Agree 100%.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top