100 Percent Tax on Those Earning $500K or More Leaves U.S. With $839B Deficit

CNSNews ^ | April 18, 2011 | Terence P. Jeffrey

[jazusamo]

We gotta get this turkey out of the WH.

[surroundedbyblue]

Wonder is the a**hole includes himself when he speaks of “millionaires & billionaires”?

[Jim Robinson]

Obama is an idiot!

[jazusamo]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

[Armaggedon]

Obama cries out, “let the class warfare games begin.” “I will bury America.”

[RWB Patriot]

It would also kill any and all incentives to work. As much as altruisitic politicians like to think, no one will give up one second of his time if he knows the product of that time will be confiscated.

[jazusamo]

You’re absolutely right plus it would have to cost many many jobs to people those dollars formerly supported.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Well, then 100% isn’t high enough!

[dblshot]

Right, all these predictions are based on a static view of economics which is false. More taxes mean more tax evasion and capital flight. Long term it means less investment, less income and leass revenues to the taxers. Hasn’t Obama ever read about killing the goose that laid the golden egg?

[ScottfromNJ]

Obama will just tax 500%, whatever he thinks it will take.

[JIM O]

OK that is year 1. What happens in year 2 after many on the people that had 100% of the income confiscated default on their obligations? Year 3? Year 4?

[Cementjungle]

Exactly. Better make it 400% to be safe.

[Qbert]

Of course the leftists would just blabber on about how defense spending needs to be slashed entirely to cover the rest of the deficit.

[wmileo]

"Well, then 100% isn’t high enough!"

They won't settle for what you earn. It is what you have that the leftists want and they will take it at the point of a gun.

[VRWCmember]

The only way these types of tax increases CAN generate the revenues that the CBO would project is if they are enacted after the tax year is over and made retroactive so that firms and individuals have no means of making economic decisions to reduce their tax liability.

In that scenario, the new tax policy could generate the inadequate revenue stream to the government for one year - and one year only. At that point firms and individuals would make rational choices to preclude finding themselves in a similar situation the following year, with devastating effects on the economy as a whole.

[RC51]

What I want to know is what is the breaking point of annual income where if taxed at 75% the annual budget would be balanced. I’d guess it is somewhere below 100k. This would make a neat Flash game in time for the 2012 election.

[sickoflibs]

Republicans have been throwing around this “taxing the wealthy 100%” to make this conceptual point. The problem is how do you (CBO in this case) estimate the revenue you would get from taxing 100%? I am not a faithful of either of the ‘any tax cuts/increases at any times always do the same thing’ cults, but the fact that the CBO estimates you would get significant revenue from tax anyone at 100% tells you how worthless they are.

[dblshot]

Again this prediction too would be based on a static view of the economy. How many people would work less if they could spend more of their own money versus work harder to get more. How many wives, working to make that motgage payment of pay for private school would be able to stay home and raise a family? Would head start enrollments fall? Lots of varibles to consider. But would less taxes allow us to return to the Leave it Beaver nuclear family? I would think so. Would we?

[Free Vulcan]

You could confiscate all the assets of all the billionaires in this country and you wouldn’t even fund the deficit for one year.

[OldDeckHand]

"The problem is how do you (CBO in this case) estimate the revenue you would get from taxing 100%?"

Line 22, IRS Form 1040. The IRS captures and reports all Line 22 information (and all the other lines, as well).