It's no secret that any claimed balance in this proposal will be on the backs of America's wealthy. Taxes on dividends seem to be increasing in some cases 300% from the current 15% rate to 45.6%. With a 1.3 trillion proposed deficit, if you take 100% of the income of those making over $1 million per year you couldn't balance the current budget. The White House is claiming some balance via a tax increase over the next 10 years. One could actually take the position this budget is balanced because the $1.3 tril is offset by 10 years of revenue increases. My question to those who see this as reasonable is: With this spending trajectory, how are you going to balance the 2013 budget? You just gigged the rich with a 300% increase. Do you intend to do the same thing again and effectively raise it to 95.2% of dividends to pay for 2013? What happens when we run out of rich people?
Perhaps the intent is to use 20 years of revenue increases at the same rate to pay for 2013 and then 30 years of revenue for 2014? This 10 year view keeps being exploited to rationalize very bad decisions today.
Perhaps we are wagering by making ourselves comfortable today that our GDP will magically double in the next couple years?
I just don’t get it.
Mike, an amazing thing about our economy is just how resilient it is. We can do many dumb things, and our economy seems to survive over time. I think this is the long term plan of the left: milk the economy dry and let it heal with the future presidents. Worked for FDR.....
ReplyDeleteGuy, it seems to work out that way. I try not to ascribe negative motives in the sense that both sides probably feel they are doing the right thing. I think the damage that FDR did was likely undone by the fact that Europe's entire manufacturing base was destroyed in WWII. The world needed rebuilding and since the US was industrialized and still had a solid infrastructure, the we were in a great position to capitalize. I don't think we have similar safety net for the spending we're doing today.
ReplyDelete