I don't normally post images I saw on Facebook here, but this one is really good

[garybeck]

[Electric Monk]

1. k&r

[Little Star]

2. It's a good one! Glad you decided to post it. k&r

[Flashmann]

3. But........But....

That looks fair and sensible...We can't have that.....

[Larry Ogg]

33. But it's even worse then fair and sensible...

Last edited Tue Mar 12, 2013, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Left unchecked, such fairness could lead to Socialism...

[Flashmann]

34. such fairness could lead to Socialism

Oh!!.....Unspeakable horror of horrors......

[SalviaBlue]

4. Good one!!

[midnight]

5. Much better approach to budgeting our countries resources....

[daleanime]

6. Tax capital gains at the same rate as income....

[hfojvt]

17. and dividends too

but Democrats already punted on that one and reduced the tax rate for dividends to just 20% - permanently.

[GeoWilliam750]

20. Enforcement and process

It is probably also a good idea to hire more auditors and train them better in forensic accounting. Then give them the budgets to go after the big problems.

Probably also appropriate to make it so that corporations cannot then employ these people away from the government.

Probably also good to make the penalties for tax avoidance/evasion similar to those for armed robbery. Whilst not often as directly violent, the impact is often far greater.

[hfojvt]

7. too bad about that

this graph was apparently made before ATRA

well, since then Obama and the Democrats have already punted on

1. "return to Clinton 36% and 39.6% top rates"
and
2. "return to more progressive estate tax"

although the graph seems to understate that, because I had this from 2010

"KLEIN: So how much does this cost? With a $1 million exemption and a 55 percent rate—in other words, what will happen if we do nothing—the estate tax would raise about $700 billion over the next 10 years. The Lincoln-Kyl version would raise less than $300 billion. And the compromise most Democrats have coalesced around—which was the 2009 level, with a $3.5 million exemption and a 45 percent rate—would've brought in a bit less than $400 billion." via the Daily Howler http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121610.shtml

Which looks like $700 billion, but the graph says $330 billion. ATRA went with the $3.5/45% version and thus gave some $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the richest estates.

But hey, I guess that is worth it to keep people who make $240,000 a year from having to pay higher taxes. Because that is a progressive's worst nightmare - that people making $240,000 a year would have to pay higher taxes. I know the fear of that keeps me up at night, and sometimes I dream that people making that much are paying Clinton-era tax rates and I wake up screaming.

[msongs]

8. the Democans and Republicrats controlling DC will not like your comments lol nt

[L0oniX]

9. K & R

[Hotler]

10. Let add, get rid of ALL subsides to corporate America. n/t

[xtraxritical]

11. You left out ending the war in Afghanistan now.

[woodsprite]

12. I say let's remove the SS cap all together. n/t

[synapticwave]

13. I agree

but that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT/DEBT!

[woodsprite]

14. Yeah, but it was on the graphic to raise it only to 170K. n/t

[hfojvt]

16. baby steps, man, baby steps

and even THAT small step would raise alot more than the "deficit chickenlittlehawks" are trying to squeeze from the working class.

[D Gary Grady]

37. It's related to borrowing and revenue in a complicated way

Social Security legally can't borrow money and hence does not directly contribute to the national debt. In fact, for almost all its history Social Security has *reduced* the annual budget deficit because the excess of Social Security taxes coming over benefits going out winds up in a Trust Fund that's invested in government bonds. And as with all government bonds, the principal immediately goes into financing general government spending, with interest and principal payments to be made later. The money to service those Trust Fund bonds comes out of general revenues and borrowing, so if we simply refused to pay the money owed to the Trust Fund, that would reduce a small fraction of federal spending. It would also be illegal and would make it impossible to pay promised benefits.

Alternatively, we could continue making those bond payments but slash promised Social Security benefits, which wouldn't reduce the official total debt, but would shift the burden of financing government away from progressive income taxes and toward regressive Social Security taxes and reduced payments to beneficiaries.

[OnlinePoker]

30. Remove the cap, you have to remove the restrictions on payout as well

Otherwise, you're doing exactly what the 1%ers say and punishing people for being wealthy.

[JDPriestly]

15. K&R. How can anyone argue with that?

[W T F]

18. Can you post the link to the FB page?

[gringo43]

21. K&R

+1

[garybeck]

32. this might help.....

the place where I saw it, it wasn't posted by an organization. it was just a person, who happened to be a friend of a friend of mine. only two people liked it so it was not getting a lot of attention. she said she got it from "too informed to vote republican". there is a copyright at the bottom that says connectthedotsusa.com

[freemay20]

19. Double Dipping??

I agree with all the points on the list. The only thing I see is that once again, when a list is made to make a point, it is sometimes a little bit untrue. On the list they have a 872B in savings for taxing the 1 million - 1 billion at 45%-49%. They then, 3 lines below, also take 442B in savings from higher tax rates with a cap of 39.6%. Which one is it? Which tax increase do we want to take? We cannot have 2 top tax rates, it is one or the other. I love the idea of maybe taxing those wealthy people twice as make up for the past(tongue in cheek) but we can't. Just pointing out that these are the same type of double dipping graphic posts we get all over the righties for doing. Love the ideas presented!!

[D Gary Grady]

39. It makes more sense than it seems to

I don't think it's actually double-dipping. First, the figures appear to date back from before the "fiscal cliff" deal, when the top rate was still 35% (plus an upcoming surtax that results from the Affordable Care Act and is presumably taken into account).

Allowing the top rate to increase on the portion of annual taxable income over $330,000 or so (which is roughly where the top rate currently kicks in) would produce a substantial chunk of revenue.

Then if on top of that we introduced an additional bracket applying to the portion of annual taxable income over $1 million, that would bring in yet more money.

[demosocialist]

22. K&R nt

[AnnieK401]

23. Great chart!

Oh wait, this hurts Wall Street, big pharma, Military contractors and corporations instead of the "little people." Hmmm.

[WillyT]

24. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[littlemissmartypants]

25. It is good.

[The Wielding Truth]

26. Very smart and responsible - this would free up money to invest in our future.

[limpyhobbler]

27. very good. make it so. (nt)

[ErikJ]

28. Historic low tax rates give us historic income/wealth gap

[ashling]

29. Thanks

[grahamhgreen]

31. NO BRAINER!

Too bad our representatives have NO BRAINS!

[Angry Dragon]

35. kick onward and upward

[marions ghost]

36. That is the war we are fighting

[D Gary Grady]

38. Full set of graphics here

The full set of slides -- pretty much all of them excellent -- can be found here:

http://www.connectthedotsusa.com/federal-budget.html