[B](CNSNews.com)[/B] - When he presented his plan for dealing with the national debt last week, President Barack Obama suggested a number of ways he would like to increase taxes on people he referred to as “millionaires and billionaires.”
However, [URL="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab3.xls"]recently released statistics[/URL] from the Internal Revenue Service indicate that taxing away 100 percent of the income of every American who earned $500,000 or more in 2009 would still have left the United States with a massive annual deficit.
In fact, in tax year 2009 (the last year for which IRS has published statistics), the combined gross income of all Americans earning $500,000 per year or more was about $1.03 trillion ($1,029,256,075,000.00) of which these Americans paid $256.7 billion ($256,699,499,000.00) in federal income taxes.
That left this group of Americans about $773 billion ($772,556,576,000.00) in income that the federal government had not taken away in income taxes.
Also during tax year 2009, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the national debt increased by $1.61 trillion ($1,611,544,812,899.90).
If the federal government had increased the income-tax rate on Americans earning more than $500,000 to 100 percent in 2009--and seized the remaining $773 billion in income it had not initially taken away from these Americans--that would have closed the federal deficit for the year to $839 billion ($838,988,236,899.90).
After taxing away 100 percent of the income of those earning $500,000 or more in 2009, the Obama administration would still have needed to increase taxes on Americans earning less than $500,000 by a total of $839 billion--just to balance federal accounts for the year.
I think what he means is we need revenue to balance the budget,and pay for glos wars and protectionism.
If you were going broke,would you just cut cost or would you also look for more revenue.
If you think cutting taxes will get us out of this,then lets have NO taxes and well get rid of this deficit right now
I remember when clinton was potus and he came out with the same thing. It turned out that anyone making $14,000 a year was rich. I will bet you a coke that it will be something like that when the details are presented.It just sounds good and it will come to the breaking point when it does.TEOOWAWKIT
That's why the call it balancing the budget. It is the aggregate of many factors that bring a budget into alignment. We aren't spending less to plant corn this year to make more money because the revenue we are budgeting for is increasing. If all we did as farmers is trim costs to make more money where would we be. Even government needs to consider revenues in the equation. Some of that revenue growth will come naturally from economic growth. Some may temporarily have to come from some tax increases. And it is not just the feds that have to llok at this big picture. Poor old Dearborn like many of the nations cities is struggling too. The mayor there is proposing a mixture of spending cuts and revenue enhancements.
I will assume that the ones on here that are opposed to increasing taxes on the rich are advid listeners of lusbo, hannity and beck. So by listening daily to their dribble about how bad increasing taxes on the rich, will make them also against raising taxes on the rich. Now why is the three amigo's so against raising taxes on the rich? Are they really that smart on how the economy works or is it because rush makes over $50 mill a year, hannity over $40 mil a year and beck over $32 mil a year.
Yeah I would be on my soapbox daily indoctrinating the sheep why increasing taxes on the rich is very bad if I made that much.
Remember who the messenger is when formulating your opinion people. Still agree with plug, a flat 15% tax rate is the way to handle it. Saw somewhere where the tax code is over 8000 pages long with numerous tax breaks for a very select number of people in the US. Need a one page form, what did you make, multiply it by 15% and send in the amount.