Skip to main content

View Diary: House Republicans: Bush tax cuts still don't have to be paid for (94 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Revenue increase from Bush Tax cuts expiring (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    on all income levels is $3.7 trillion over 10 years, give or take.  Of that, $700 billion over 10 years is that portion from families over $250,000.  

    Add the Buffett rule -- another $40 billion over 10 years.  

    Revenue from tax increases -- about $375 billion a year (if you raise taxes on everybody, and add in the Buffett rule).  

    We have an annual deficit of over $1 trillion.  

    •  "raising taxes on everyone" is not the same as (0+ / 0-)

      cutting corporate welfare as it is written into our current taxation system.

      One of the simplest of new taxes that should be instated, but that predictable sectors would squawk at, would be to impose a one-cent tax on every single wall street trade.  Every single one, every day-- a one-cent tax.

      How many individual "sell", "buy" and trade transactions happen every day in this country?  Hundreds of thousands?  

      That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

      by concernedamerican on Tue May 01, 2012 at 02:02:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That needs to be imposed on a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, VClib

        worldwide basis if it is going to happen.  (and then, of course, comes the pressure to use it on a worldwide basis, not just in the U.S.)  If you tax trades, for example, on the NYSE, people will just trade on another overseas market where there is no tax.

        How much money in the U.S. would that be projected to raise?  I haven't seen good numbers.  

      •  concerneda - wouldn't raise much money (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        concernedamerican

        Last year the EU suggested that the US, UK, and the EU all implement a .1% transaction tax all at the same time, thereby limiting any changes in trading patterns because of the fee. Unfortunately both the Obama administration and the British PM didn't respond. In time Toyko and Hong Kong could likely be brought along as well. A .1% transaction tax could raise serious money, but one cent per trade wouldn't raise enough to cover the administrative cost of the tax.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue May 01, 2012 at 06:43:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Will the EU be re-proposing the .1% transaction (0+ / 0-)

          tax again?

          That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

          by concernedamerican on Wed May 02, 2012 at 03:45:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know, but this is the right answer (0+ / 0-)

            There is clearly a willingness at the EU to consider such a transaction fee and forming a syndicate of the world's largest money centers to implement it all at once is the right answer.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:15:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site