Debt

  1. [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Last month, the U.S. national debt passed the $8 trillion mark. This year's budget deficit alone added $319 billion to the country's obligations. According to the feds themselves, deficits will rise to $873 billion per year within 10 years. Two years more and they will be at $1 trillion per year, with a national debt edging up to $20 trillion. By 2017, annual deficits are supposed to reach $2 trillion per year.[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]These figures are not just guesses. They're projections based on boondoggle laws already on the books.

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]According to the Bush-friendly Heritage Foundation, federal deficits are expected to rise to $1 trillion per year, by the year 2017, with a $16 trillion national debt, twice today's level. After that, deficits should grow to $2 trillion per year
    Full Article


    :stone
    •  
  2. 74 Comments

  3. by   VeryPlainJane
    I think it's time again for a huge tax cut for the top 2%!
  4. by   SharonH, RN
    This can easily be made up by cutting school lunches for hungry children, cutting off medical assistance to the poor and elderly and reducing spending on education, veterans and law enforcement. Whatever is left over can be shifted to our children and grandchildren.
  5. by   VeryPlainJane
    The Tax Policy Center calculated that 51.3 percent of the House bill's tax package would flow to the top 1 percent of filers, people with average annual incomes of $1.1 million. Put another way: half the entire tax cut would go to about 1.4 million households.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/bu...ey/04view.html

    Gosh, sounds pretty fair and well worth all of the time and money for Congress to write tax policy for 1% of the public. How democratic and free. And to think the world doesn't want to model themselves after the US.
    Last edit by VeryPlainJane on Dec 4, '05
  6. by   pickledpepperRN
    President George W. Bush and the current administration have now borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined

    http://www.house.gov/tanner/press109-050.htm
    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20051104b.html
    http://www.house.gov/tanner/legislation_budget.htm
  7. by   Spidey's mom
    but if you flip things over and look at it another way . .. . .

    the top 50% pay 96.54% of all income taxes and the top 1% pay more than a third, 34.27%.



    this is the latest datafor calendar year 2003 just released in october 2005
    by the internal revenue service. the share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. however,
    their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%

    think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the united states is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. are the top half millionaires? noooo, more like "thousandaires." the top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (the top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
    the top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (up from 2003: 33.71%) the top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (up from 2002: 53.80%). the top 10% pay 65.84% (up from 2002: 65.73%). the top 25% pay 83.88% (down from 2002: 83.90%). the top 50% pay 96.54% (up from 2002: 96.50%). the bottom 50%? they pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (down from 2002: 3.50%). the top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! and who earns what? the top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). the top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). the top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.



    so, my husband and i are in the top 50% . . . just a little part-time rn and a logging truck driver.

    that is who you are talking about when you talk about soaking the "rich".

    me. probably you.

    steph



    Last edit by brian on Dec 5, '05 : Reason: removed link to commercial site (rl)
  8. by   VeryPlainJane
    Quote from stevielynn
    but if you flip things over and look at it another way . .. . .

    the top 50% pay 96.54% of all income taxes and the top 1% pay more than a third, 34.27%.



    this is the latest datafor calendar year 2003 just released in october 2005
    by the internal revenue service. the share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. however,
    their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%

    think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the united states is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. are the top half millionaires? noooo, more like "thousandaires." the top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (the top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
    the top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (up from 2003: 33.71%) the top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (up from 2002: 53.80%). the top 10% pay 65.84% (up from 2002: 65.73%). the top 25% pay 83.88% (down from 2002: 83.90%). the top 50% pay 96.54% (up from 2002: 96.50%). the bottom 50%? they pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (down from 2002: 3.50%). the top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! and who earns what? the top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). the top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). the top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

    so, my husband and i are in the top 50% . . . just a little part-time rn and a logging truck driver.

    that is who you are talking about when you talk about soaking the "rich".

    me. probably you.

    steph


    the above statistics could well have the effect of angering anyone who makes more than $26,000 since it implies that they are helping to pay for the lower 50 percent of wage-earners. in fact, this is an example of the misleading use of averages. following is a summary of the irs data being cited by rush:

    as can be seen, the lower half of this "oppressed group", the 50 to 75 percentile, actually pays only 13.13 percent of all income taxes despite the fact that they make up 25 percent of the population. the next group, the 75 to 90 percentile, pays 18 percent of all income taxes, slightly more than their 15 percent share of the population. however, the 18 percent is still less than their 22.12 share of income and is therefore less than they would pay under a flat tax. the next group, the 90 to 95 percentile, pays 11.64 percent of all income taxes, slightly more than their 11.12 percent share of income. hence, it is primarily the top five percent of taxpayers, those making over $127.9 thousand, who pay more than they would under a flat tax, making up for the lower 90 percent, who pay less. this is a far cry from the upper half of taxpayers, those making over $28.5 thousand, referred to by rush.

    http://pweb.netcom.com/~rdavis2/richpay.html
  9. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from VeryPlainJane
    The above statistics could well have the effect of angering anyone who makes more than $26,000 since it implies that they are helping to pay for the lower 50 percent of wage-earners. In fact, this is an example of the misleading use of averages. Following is a summary of the IRS data being cited by Rush:

    As can be seen, the lower half of this "oppressed group", the 50 to 75 percentile, actually pays only 13.13 percent of all income taxes despite the fact that they make up 25 percent of the population. The next group, the 75 to 90 percentile, pays 18 percent of all income taxes, slightly more than their 15 percent share of the population. However, the 18 percent is still less than their 22.12 share of income and is therefore less than they would pay under a flat tax. The next group, the 90 to 95 percentile, pays 11.64 percent of all income taxes, slightly more than their 11.12 percent share of income. Hence, it is primarily the top five percent of taxpayers, those making over $127.9 thousand, who pay more than they would under a flat tax, making up for the lower 90 percent, who pay less. This is a far cry from the upper half of taxpayers, those making over $28.5 thousand, referred to by Rush.

    http://pweb.netcom.com/~rdavis2/richpay.html
    Ah, statistics . . . . gotta love em. I believe this is comparing things to a flat tax rather than just looking at who pays what now.

    steph
  10. by   Tweety
    Those are staggering statistics. It boggles the mind.
  11. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from Tweety
    Those are staggering statistics. It boggles the mind.
    Whose? Roy's, mine or Jane's?

    Oh lordy, please don't remind of statistics class.

    steph
  12. by   pickledpepperRN
    Why do we pay taxes?

    The Constitution of the United States of America

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#preamble
  13. by   Turd.Ferguson
    I would give this congress a D- or F for controlling spending. Shame on the president for not vetoing some of this ridiculous spending.
  14. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from Turd.Ferguson
    I would give this congress a D- or F for controlling spending. Shame on the president for not vetoing some of this ridiculous spending.
    I agree and this is one area that I'm disappointed in my President.

    steph

close