We Hiked Taxes. Now What?


TBSchemer's avatar
It's no secret that the US is on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. Our deficit continues to grow, and the interest payments on our debt will soon be a large enough portion of our GDP to make it impossible to truly repay our national debt. [link] When that eventuality occurs (about 3-5 years from now), we will officially be in a Greek-style financial crisis with no escape.

So we just enacted the Democrats' proposed solution to the problem- tax hikes on the rich. And nothing has changed about our situation. Our budget deficit is still going to be over $1 trillion (5% of the GDP) [link] and growing. We're still accumulating debt on an unsustainable trajectory.

Is there a Part 2 to the left-wing plan to save the US from fiscal catastrophe? I thought you were all saying all we needed to do was let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich, and the country would be saved? You got your tax hikes on the rich, so why isn't the country saved yet? When the Republicans come forward and demand entitlement cuts to save the country from a debt catastrophe, what's going to be your alternative proposal to eliminate the deficit?

Step 1: Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Comments402
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
puddelbal's avatar
You do realize that the DNC platform consists of more than just tax hikes, right?
TBSchemer's avatar
Right, so what portion of their platform is actually going to solve the debt crisis?
puddelbal's avatar
What's more important, the debt, or unemployment? The US isn't on the verge of defaulting on it's loans, so it'd be much better to worry about getting folks back to work and pay the debt down slowly.
TBSchemer's avatar
Every year we dig ourselves deeper in debt, it becomes more difficult to avoid default in the future. In other words, yes, we're not immediately on the verge of defaulting, but we are past the point where the debt grows faster than our economy.

Every year we ignore the debt, our entire society loses more wealth. If we address the debt now, sure we might increase unemployment by 2%, but if we wait 3 more years, it might take an increase of 4% in unemployment to fix the mess. There is absolutely no advantage to waiting. The only reason the Democrats want to wait is because they don't want to admit that their ideology has doomed us, so they'll continue to deny it all well beyond the point of economic collapse.
Agburanar's avatar
yawn

You're distorting the position of the left, I think. They would like to fix our current budgetary problems by a combination of taxation and spending cuts, rather than the Tea Party's bizarre solution of gutting social services and instituting a more regressive tax regime.
Zucca-Xerfantes's avatar
He's not distorting a thing.

The Left has been harping on about how upping taxes on the amorphously defined 'rich' would make pretty much everything better.

We've had that a while now. Why do projections still look dismal and grim, set to become REALLY bad in about the same amount of time the next president will be in?

And tell me how the 'bizarre' solution of both tax and spending cuts would not work.

It's general belt-tightening, the way you would like you're on a diet, but Democrats want their bon-bons...
Lytrigian's avatar
A while? It's been a couple of weeks. Just how fast do you think the economy moves, anyway?

As far as low taxes helping, we've had a historically low tax burden ever since the Bush years. If it was supposed to generate jobs, where are they? You people never acknowledge that you ALREADY had the lowest taxes since the end of WWII, and that they weren't helping.

But when did we last have budget surpluses? Gee, let me think...
Zucca-Xerfantes's avatar
Have you bothered to look at *why* Billy Blowjob presided over a surplus?

Unless you're willing to concede that Obama is responsible for digging us a multi-trillion dollar hole since he's presiding over it.

But I suppose in Black and White, Republicans can only ever preside over catastrophe and Democrats only ever do good things.

It's a full spectrum out there, dude...
Lytrigian's avatar
Oh yes. And I've also looked into *why* Obama has been "digging" a multi-trillion dollar hole. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like the answer.

Republicans, Schmepublicans. Not everyone who dislikes Bush is an ultra-radical freak.
mgonzales041090's avatar
amorphously defined 'rich'
It's not amorphously defined. It's defined as $250,000 a year and up.

And tell me how the 'bizarre' solution of both tax and spending cuts would not work.
It's not bizarre. We've advocated for a balanced solution consisting of new revenues and spending cuts. It's the Teapublicans who've advocated no tax hikes and harmful spending cuts.

Sexy-Cowboy-Predator's avatar
"It's not amorphously defined. It's defined as $250,000 a year and up."

I mak about 30,000$ a year and my income taxes have gone from ~3% to ~6% in the past couple weeks. So it must be a pretty loose definition more like "250,000$ plus or minus 220,000$" seems kind of amorphous to me....
mgonzales041090's avatar
Actually, your income taxes have stayed the same. Your payroll taxes went up. Thanks. :)
Sexy-Cowboy-Predator's avatar
Semantics dont change the facts. Thanks :)
mgonzales041090's avatar
Blame Teapublicans as far as the hikes go. Obama wanted to extend the payroll tax cut. =/
View all replies
Zucca-Xerfantes's avatar
Bullshit and bullshit again.

I say amorphously defined because the ignorant, like yourself, do not understand small businesses. Oh, someone can pull in $250,000, but that is not total profit. That is simply income.

After expenses, wages, maintenance, inventory and the witheringly high taxes, there's not much left to life off of.

Your side is under the impression that anyone in that income bracket swim in money like Scrooge McDuck.

And I think you missed the context of that discussion. But it seems much flies over your head, doesn't it?

Tell me then, o ignorant and sycophantic one... WHAT FUCKING PLANET ARE YOU FROM?!

'Teapublicans' advocate a flat tax across the board and spending cuts that effect *everything* so as to distribute the weight of the impact.

You guys? Your solution is to dance like the Pied Piper's rats behind moron hypocrites like Michael Moore with 'fleece the rich!' as your chant.

Tell me... what exactly are the *harmful* spending cuts you speak of?
mgonzales041090's avatar
Oh, someone can pull in $250,000, but that is not total profit. That is simply income.
Which makes up less 5% and less of businesses. In the real world, small businesses don't make $250,000 a year. In your faux-reality Republican bubble, hedge funds are small. Get real.

After expenses, wages, maintenance, inventory and the witheringly high taxes, there's not much left to life off of.
$250,000 is the profit, not the expenses genius. Expenses aren't taxed from yearly income. Profit is. Once again, are you fucking blind, or does reality just elude you?

Your side is under the impression that anyone in that income bracket swim in money like Scrooge McDuck.
And your side is under the impression that being poor means being lazy. That being said, if you take home a $250,000 a year profit, you're swimming in money. Maybe you're not as luxurious as Warren Buffett, but you're swimming in a much bigger pool than your average teacher, construction worker, restaurant owner, and police officer. i.e. you're swimming in a much bigger pool than 95% of Americans.

But it seems much flies over your head, doesn't it?
Like reality flying over yours.

Tell me then, o ignorant and sycophantic one
This is the second time you've used the word sycophantic. The first time was also incorrect. I'm not being sycophantic, and you need to look up that word.

WHAT FUCKING PLANET ARE YOU FROM?!
Earth - where tax cuts for the rich don't grow jobs, and the defense budget is way too fucking large.

advocate a flat tax across the board and spending cuts that effect *everything* so as to distribute the weight of the impact.
Actually, it just increases income disparity. Since you're not from this plain of reality, maybe you don't know. The US has a huge problem with income distribution.

what exactly are the *harmful* spending cuts you speak of?
Sure. Food stamps seems to be a big one with you guys. In addition to that, Medicare and Social Security, which is hugely ironic because the biggest supporters of the Teapublican morons are people who depend on Social Security and are the unhealthiest mother fuckers around. You know what's a harmless spending cut? Defense. It doesn't keep us safer. The USSR isn't stocking up nukes to come to war with us. Germany isn't going to begin another war in Europe. I think it's pretty safe to say we don't need as much spending as we have in there.
VorpalPen's avatar
We've had that a while now.
We've had what a while now? The taxes that just went up a few weeks ago?!?

Why do projections still look dismal and grim, set to become REALLY bad in about the same amount of time the next president will be in?
What projections?
Zucca-Xerfantes's avatar
Not those. The tax hikes from the last electoral cycle.

I'll let you do your own searching since any projections I show you, you will suspect *because* I provided them. But let this be the tip of the iceberg... [link]
mgonzales041090's avatar
Last electoral cycle? 2010? Obama gave you tax cuts then. Do you know anything about politics, or did you accidentally click this while trying to hit Deviant Meets?
Zucca-Xerfantes's avatar
The one prior. I tired the debating tactic of intentionally misunderstanding. Really pedestrian of you.
mgonzales041090's avatar
I don't think you know what pedestrian means either.
TBSchemer's avatar
But they already got their taxation. Are you saying it's not enough? At what point will the left decide, "That's enough taxation- time to cut spending"?
VorpalPen's avatar
They already cut 2 trillion in spending, too, and the Republican's new tax hike on the middle class won't help matters.
TBSchemer's avatar
Where? I don't see any spending cuts in the latest deal.