Wednesday, November 14, 2012

That's It?

Not surprisingly, the math doesn't work.
President Barack Obama will begin budget negotiations with congressional leaders Friday by calling for $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenue over the next decade, far more than Republicans are likely to accept and double the $800 billion discussed in talks with GOP leaders during the summer of 2011.
$1.6T over 10 years is $160B per year or about 15% of our current deficit. So much for coming even close to a balanced budget by soaking the rich. $160B will be absorbed instantly by even the most modest increase in interest rates.

Time to print more money. Lots more.


Jeff Burton said...

This is not an exercise in math or accounting. It's the satisfaction of envy.

Envy is running neck and neck with sexual license for the title of the USA's besetting sin. And of course, each are seen by the wider culture as a virtue.

K T Cat said...

I was going to make a snarky comment that this just shows you're a greedy prude, but you've hit upon a corollary to my central thesis of late. I'd suggest that performance is of little value. For instance, folks like Robert Reich write endlessly about income inequality, but never actually examine the behaviors that lead to it. California follows his prescriptions and has some of the worst income inequality anywhere in the US.

As you say, it's about envy and self-gratification, not about any appreciable difference in the life of the average Joe.

tom said...

It could be fun to propose a new tax bracket to see if anybody's actually serious about the class warfare thing. On incomes at the top 0.1% or so institute a 70% bracket retroactive to the current 35% limit. So if you make $200-800k, you pay at 35% for the top part of your income (I don't have the exact numbers handy, sorry). If you make $5M, you skip the 35% rate and pay 70% on everything over the 35% threshhold.

This should have the added bonus of skipping over the DINK union household, and maybe over the union leaders themselves. It directly targets the people the president claims need to pay the most.

Of course anybody actually making that sort of money has the sort of accountants that make any collections unlikely. But it's all about the symbolism, right?

And there's always the voluntary contribution to the treasury form. I'd love to see a reporter hand one to POTUS and ask why he hasn't "contributed" so he effectively pays the rates he wants others to pay.

tom said...

VDH makes my point much better than I did...