$500 trillion tax cut

Oh please.  He meant to say $500 billion, not $500 trillion.  The basic point is why on earth would people support giving the wealthiest Americans $500 billion in tax cuts?  On what planet is that a good idea?  It makes no sense.  We can talk about that...but it's more fun to talk about gaffes which both sides make.

I know the # is $500 billion but I'm not so sure he slipped up "accidentally".  You'd be surprised how uniformed a lot of voters are and will take the #s at face value.

And it's not a new "tax cut".  He is speaking about leaving the Bush "tax cuts" in place.  Romney does not want to cut their taxes more.  He wants to leave the Bush cuts in place.

Biden/Obama want the Bush tax cuts to expire.  So in reality they want to raise the taxes.

And Obama has vowed to VETO any bill that extends the cuts for EVERYONE.  So in other words, he is willing to increase taxes on everyone, vs getting his way and increasing taxes only on the "rich".

Which we have proven time and time again will do next to nothing to help the economy, the debt or the fiscal cliff to which we are racing so fast.

The Bush tax cuts are set to expire.  The Democrats have proposed maintaining the cuts for all BUT the wealthiest of Americans, a.k.a. those who can afford it the most.  It sounds like common sense to me.

TriR, we understand each other completely.  Had the VP used the word $500 kerjillion, it would have the same meaning.  It's a lot of money that (according to Republicans) will go into the pockets of wealthy Americans and then will be immediately injected into the economy creating jobs!

Do you think there's a chance that money goes into wealthy folks' pockets and either a: stays in their pockets?, or b: is used to invest in business opportunities outside of the U.S. where labor laws are lax and there is no minimum wage?

Please tell me why those 2 scenarios are not the most likely scenarios and maybe I'll change my tune.  Until then, I will support the fiendish efforts of the Obama administration to tax the wealthiest Americans at the rate they were taxed back in the Clinton era.

I am technically one of these "wealthiest Americans" (as defined by Obama) due to the way my business is structured.  So I think I'm in a good position to answer your question.

It would go back into the company without a doubt.  I take home enough money to live a good life.  I could be taking home more (pulling $ out of the business) but I don't because I know the key to continued success is to grow the business. In fact I'm looking for more engineers to grow with my customer's demands.  How can I afford more engineers when I'm taking home their money?

Furthermore all this talk of "outsourcing" is a bit of a Chicken Little problem.  A lot of companies that dabble in outsourcing quickly see their quality fall and bring it right back home.

For every huge gigantic company that outsources 1000 jobs, there are 100s of small businesses that have no way, or desire, to outsource.  And with extra $ in the bank they want to grow.

Everyone always pictures the "rich" as the owners of GM and GE and Apple and there other Fortune 500 companies.  What people fail to realize is that SBs (defined as employing less than 500 people) account for over 52% of all workers in the US. 20 million Americans work for companies with less than 20 employees.  18.5 million work for companies with 20-99 employees. 

Are these the evil rich guys that are going to line their pockets with the tax break?  Or are they going to reinvest to make MORE money in the long run.

It's really a simple answer.

One thing I've learned in my years is there are no simple answers.  Big businesses across the U.S. are sitting on money.  Many are not re-investing the money.  In theory, the money will trcikle down and more jobs will be created...but if those businesses see there isn't enough money in the pockets of consumers, they would be foolish to hire more workers/create more product...so, they don't.

btw, the fact you and other folks on the Right keep using the "evil rich guy" terminology is upsetting.  Nobody advocating a return to a tax structure that was used in the Clinton boom years is calling wealthy people "evil."   

Also, what was the stat mentioned earlier?  97% of small businesses bring in less than $250,000/year, which means they are not adversely affected by the roll-back of the Bush tax cuts...Bush's tax cuts that put $500 billion back into the pockets of the 120,000 highest earning families.

Not sure what the deal is, but if the wind blows, it seems it's a chance to bash the Dem ticket. Your posting history says so, and today it's x2.  I know you've got beliefs, and a twitchy trigger finger, but you're wearing COJ out, and in the process, me.   

Not sure if it's a tough, or insecure day. But the linking of pretty harmless stuff to Dem incompetence is reaching, bordering on troll. There have been several of you, all have been warned. Both ways, BTW. 

This is public notice served. It isn't in your best interest, nor ours. 

Are you serious?  Please show me one post where I have been "trollish"? I am not 100% sure that in this case Biden "misspoke".  The man is well know for making "mistakes" that make the right look bad to his base.  And what other "harmless stuff" are you talking about... the embassy reports.  hardly harmless IMO.

Regardless the topic quickly moved off of that and onto a serious discussion of tax cuts.

So several of us have been warned?  However only me publicly?  Interesting.

I believe I have abided by the rules set forth my Mike in his political post.  If I have not please point them out to me and I will apologize for the infractions.

However right now it sounds like you just don't agree with my opinions.

Proven by whom.. and when? 

By math...

2009 data (which was the latest available in 2011 when this first hit the news...)

It shows $727 billion in income reported by the million-and-up set in 2009, based on the adjusted gross income line on the federal tax return.

If you taxed these people at 100% (taking all of their income) you could have run the $3.5 trillion federal government (which is now closer to $4 trillion) for about 2.5 months.

If you expand this to a 100% tax on all earnings above $250,000 per year that comes to about $1.4trillion.  This keeps the government running for about 4 months.

And while this is a hypothetical that would never happen do you think these people would keep their money in the US after being taxed at 100% (what about 80,60,50, 40...?)?  So what do you do the next year?

The problem is spending, not revenue.

I forget what the numbers are if you confiscate not just their incomes but all their wealth as well; as I recall you still don't get to an entire year of the federal budget.

Funny part is, nobody cares to look past the class warfare this administration has been surviving on.   This has been pointed out already above, but increasing taxes on wealthiest Americans does little to change the trajectory of the deficit.  So it makes great campaign speeches and for reaching out to Dem base, but it is all for show.  The fall back answer I normally get when I show someone the facts is this; "Well. we have to start somewhere".   At that point I am usually just shaking my head.  I am not saying GOP has laid out the master tax reform and austerity plans we truly need, but this whipping on top 1% to pay more simply doesn't get it done. 

x2 on letting these discussions carry on.  It's healthy conversation. 

It's both candidates really. Cutting planned parenthood funds, Dept. of Education, NPR funds, increasing defense spending by $2T does even less than raising taxes on the wealthy. This is why I don't expect our economy to recover for quite some time, barring some crazy technological breakthrough that generates millions of jobs.

I just meant those cuts represent even less deficit reduction than raising the taxes on the wealthy.

Just my thoughts on the school issue.

To say that ole Joe is a dim bulb is an understatement- the guy's a blithering idiot.  "Off the record" I'll bet Obama would even agree.

Andi

Josh, I enjoy your posts.  You're an iconoclastic beacon of impartiality!  Balancing budgets requires two things...increasing revenue and decreasing spending...the beautiful ugliness of it all is that neither side can agree on how it's done.  

I love PBS and NPR, but that said, are they vital to our national interests?  No.  I'd leave them on the negotiating table.  Now Planned Parenthood, that's actually a net positive for the economy.  Sorry, no matter how you cut it, protecting the health and welfare of our nations' females is a vital national interest.  Healthier females = lower healthcare costs, less venereal diseases, more reproductive education, improved family planning (a.k.a. less unwanted/unloved children that grow up to be a net negative economically...ironically enough since you recommended it for a separate subject, read Freakonomics for a good economists' view of the huge benefit of Roe v. Wade).

Pinning the educational problems mainly on families?  If I had to prioritize the factors, I'd probably agree with you to an extent.  

The extra $2 trillion dollars on military spending that the military didn't even ask for?  That's gotta be tough for the most right-leaning of Republicans to justify when trying to balance a budget. (but it sounds tough doesn't it?)